Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (HOGSMILL RIVER IMPROVEMENT) (AMENDMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Return ordered,
of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of the last Parliament on 1st and 8th December."—[Mr. Assheton.]

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.6 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read.a Second time."
This is a short and simple Bill, but it is none the less important. It is important because it is essential if we are to carry through our obligations undertaken in connection with the Council of Europe. Since the opening of this Parliament, this House has been sailing through the choppy seas of controversy, but today we should sail in calmer waters, as both sides of the House support the Council of Europe and are represented at its deliberations. It is to protect the rights and privileges of those who attend the Council as members of the Consultative Assembly that this Bill is introduced.
Under the Statute of Europe, which was ratified by the United Kingdom on 26th July, 1949, it was agreed to grant certain immunities to persons attending the Council of Europe. An agreement on privileges and immunities of the Council was drawn up and issued as a White Paper which was laid before this House. This agreement set out the details of

what these privileges and immunities should be, and all this Bill does is to enable that agreement to be carried out by empowering His Majesty, by Orders in Council, to provide such privileges and immunities.
The Council of Europe, as hon. Members are well aware, is unique. It is unique because it has two bodies, one the Committee of Ministers and the other the Consultative Assembly. There is no international precedent for the Council of Europe, and it therefore is not surprising that present legislation never envisaged such a body, and makes no provision whatsoever for it. An especial and unique feature of the Consultative Assembly is that it is like a national Parliament in some senses; that is to say, those people who serve on the Consultative Assembly do not represent His Majesty's Government but represent the Members of both sides of this House; all parties are represented on the Consultative Assembly.
At the outset I should make it quite clear that it is only in connection with the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe that any additional powers are now required and are now being sought. The existing Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Acts of 1944 and 1946 are quite adequate to cover the Council itself viewed as a juridical entity, and of course the Committee of Ministers of the Council. But under the existing Acts it would not be possible to extend any immunities and privileges to the Consultative Assembly itself; that is to say, the present Acts, in so far as they deal with representatives, only envisage persons who are representatives of Governments and none others; they only cover people who are representing their Governments at the various conferences, and so on, which take place.
The Acts then contain a proviso, under which no privileges can be conferred by Order in Council on anyone who represents a Government of the United Kingdom; in other words, the existing Acts only enable privileges and immunities to be granted to the representatives of foreign Governments. That, of course, is common practice, and it is generally accepted that it is right that that should be so. It is quite right that persons who represent the United Kingdom on international bodies should not have


privileges and immunities within the United Kingdom. The purpose of all the other agreements about immunities and privileges is not to protect the representative in his own country but only to protect him when abroad.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does that mean that when a Member of this House goes abroad, the Bill will give him diplomatic privileges at, for example, Strasbourg?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member will wait a little, he will find that I shall be dealing fully with that in a few moments. Even in connection with the Council of Europe, we do not want power to grant privileges and immunities within the United Kingdom to anyone who represents the United Kingdom on the Committee of Ministers. What we want is to provide that those privileges and immunities shall be provided for representatives on the Consultative Assembly. That answers the question which the hon. Member has just put to me.

Sir H. Williams: No. I want to know in what way any Acts of this House can give its Members diplomatic privileges when they are overseas?

Mr. Davies: The Bill does not cover diplomatic privileges overseas. It is to cover diplomatic privileges and immunities, when they return to this country, for anything which British representatives may have said whilst attending the Assembly in Strasbourg.
One of the fundamental ideas of the Assembly is that those attending it are not representatives of their Governments acting on orders of their Governments. They are free in the Consultative Assembly to criticise their Governments just as Members of this House are free to criticise His Majesty's Government; and just as much as here, on both sides of the House, they are not inhibited or frustrated in so doing, so in the Consultative Assembly at Strasbourg all representatives are free to exercise their right to express their views in whatever form they desire. It is desired to give to representatives on the Consultative Assembly much the same immunities to secure unfettered freedom of speech and discussion as Members of this House enjoy. This object would not be achieved if the immunity of British representatives at the Assembly did not apply in the United Kingdom as well as in foreign

countries. This is, in effect, the only point of substance in the Bill. I venture to hope that it will commend itself equally to both sides of the House because of the interest and participation of both sides in the Consultative Assembly.
The immunities of members of the Consultative Assembly are set forth in Articles 13 to 15 of the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, to which I have already referred. Article 13 does not have to be considered in connection with the present Bill, since the obligations under it can be fulfilled by administrative action. They refer, of course, to the restrictions on the free movement of representatives to the Assembly, to and from the place of meeting, and deal with Customs and Exchange control and so on, all of which can be dealt with by administrative action.
Article 14 is the essential provision, because this is the safeguard of freedom of speech. It provides for freedom for representatives
from official interrogation and from arrest and all legal proceedings in respect of words spoken or votes cast by them in the exercise of their functions.
Article 15 then provides that representatives.at the Assembly, whether or not they are Members of Parliament on their national territory, shall enjoy the immunities accorded there to Members of Parliament during the actual sessions of the Consultative Assembly. It is for that purpose that provision has to be made, and is made, in the Bill.
Members of this House are very well aware of their immunities in respect of arrest under the law of this country. I take the following brief statement of them from Halsbury's "Laws of England," and I believe that Erskine May says very much the same thing:
Whilst Parliament is sitting and during the time within which the privilege of Parliament extends, it is claimed by resolutions of both Houses that no Peer or Member of the House of Commons may be imprisoned or restrained without the order or sentence of the House of Lords or House of Commons as the case may be unless it be for treason or felony or for refusing to give security for the peace. Neither House of Parliament claims or has ever claimed freedom from arrest of any of its Members who is charged with a criminal offence.
That is the statement of the privileges laid down concerning this House as they are generally accepted.
Article 15 of the General Agreement, to which I have already referred, provides that the Consultative Assembly can itself waive the immunity of any of its members under this particular Article 15—immunities which are, of course, far less than full diplomatic immunity—and they are covered by Clause 1 (2) of the Bill. This subsection extends the provisions of the two previous Acts to representatives whether of Governments or not:
to representatives (whether of governments or not) on any organ of such an organisation.
It thereby makes it quite clear that privileges and immunities can be extended to persons who represent a country but who do not represent the Government of that country. Once that is provided for under the provisions, which are not changed, of the Act of 1946, there is power by Order in Council to give to these representatives anything up to full diplomatic privilege. Full diplomatic privilege covers everything that has to be given to representatives of the Consultative Assembly under Articles 14 and 15 of the General Agreement.
The Bill, therefore, gives adequate powers for His Majesty, by Order in Council, to prescribe in accordance with the Agreement exactly what the representatives of the Consultative Assembly should have. It leaves untouched, of course, the proviso in the earlier Acts that no Order in Council is to confer any immunity on any person who represents His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. This proviso will not operate, of course, on members of the Consultative Assembly because, as I have already pointed out, these representatives, although they represent the United Kingdom, do not represent His Majesty's Government. The proviso, however, will still render it impossible, for instance, to give by Order in Council immunity to a United Kingdom representative on the Committee of Ministers who does represent His Majesty's Government, or to all the other persons who represent the Government in other international organisations.
It may be asked why the Bill gives wider powers than actually are needed for the purpose for which it is introduced, and why it does not prescribe exactly what representatives on the Consultative Assembly are to have. The answer is the

same as that which has been given and accepted in connection with the two Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Acts, namely, that it is quite impracticable, without producing a Bill of great length and complexity, or without presenting a special Bill in regard to every individual international organisation, to prescribe by a Bill in detail exactly what privileges and immunities are to be accorded to the various classes of persons concerned with each individual organisation.
The present Bill follows the scheme of the existing Acts, which is to prescribe the maximum that can be granted by Order in Council. Individual Orders would have to be made for each organisation, and thereby the details peculiar to each organisation can be regulated, while the same pattern can, of course, be generally followed. I should like to renew the undertaking which was given here by my predecessors in connection with the previous Bills that Orders in Council will not be made giving privileges and immunities wider than are necessary to fulfil the obligations of His Majesty's Government under the relevant international agreements.
I would also remind the House that all Orders under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Acts, including the present Bill, have to be laid before Parliament and may be annulled by negative Resolutions. In other words, Parliament will remain supreme and it is quite clear that if that undertaking were departed from there would be an opportunity of challenging it in this House and action being taken.
I have now dealt with all the substance, and will just say a word concerning subsection (1) of Clause 1. This involves no matter of substance but is one of drafting to bring the 1944 and 1946 Acts into line with the constitutions of existing organisations. It has been found that the language of the Act of 1944, which was enacted when the now defunct U.N.R.R.A. was the only international organisation which had then taken shape, and that the language of the Act of 1946, which had in view particularly the United Nations and the International Court of Justice and which was passed when most of the present international organisations which go by the name of Specialised Agencies were not yet in being, is not


apt, having regard to the form which constitutions of these organisations have taken.
For instance, the Acts of 1944 and 1946 refer to organisations of which His Majesty's Government and the Governments of other foreign sovereign Powers are members. In the constitutions of the different organisations, in some cases the members are described as being States and sometimes the Governments of States. There is not really any difference of substance here whether the member is described as a Government or as a State, but it is well not to leave room for any technical points, however ill-founded, and it is particularly desirable to leave no scope for such a technical point here when, as I have pointed out already, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the representatives of Governments on an organisation and representatives of States on an organisation who do not represent their Governments at the Consultative Assembly.
It is the purpose of this subsection to make absolutely clear that the Act applies to organisations whose members are States as well as organisations whose members are Governments. At this stage it is not necessary to go into further details about this subsection because it can be considered more in detail when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. I repeat, there is no question of substance in this subsection; it is merely the adaptation of the intention of the old Acts to the constitutions of the international organisations that have now come into being.
If right hon. and hon. Members find two Acts followed by a third rather confusing to read and consider, if they find this legislation by reference, by amendment, difficult, I am sure that most hon. Members of the House have full sympathy with them. I would add that full consideration is being given to the consolidation of these three Acts under the special procedure available for purely consolidating Bills, and a consolidation Act would render the position as clear as any Act of Parliament can usually be. As a matter of fact, the procedure here followed of introducing a third Measure to amend the previous Act is a step towards consolidation. Once this Bill is on the Statute Book, it would be possible to

introduce a consolidation Bill through the consolidating machinery.
This Bill is necessary for us to carry out obligations undertaken in connection with the Council of Europe, obligations which I know hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to fulfil. if the Bill were not passed, the United Kingdom representatives would not only be at a disadvantage as compared with their continental colleagues, but it would not be possible for us to ratify the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe into which we have already entered. Our representatives would then be in an invidious position at Strasbourg this Summer.
The Bill is not for the benefit of any individual but to enable our representatives freely to carry out their functions at the Council of Europe. I know it is the wish of both sides of the House that they should do so. Its application is, therefore, limited to those who attend the Consultative Assembly. I know there was some concern during the passage of the Acts of 1944 and 1946 that diplomatic privileges would be widely extended. In practice, this has not turned out to be the case, and only 91 persons have obtained immunity under these Acts who otherwise would have been unable to obtain it.
As hon. Members are well aware, legislation concerning diplomatic privilege in this country dates back to an Act passed in 1708 in the reign of Queen Anne. From that date on, this country has meticulously honoured its obligations as regards diplomatic immunity. Unfortunately, that is not true of all countries today. One expects diplomatic privilege and immunity to be roughly on a reciprocal basis, and for the most part it has been up till now. In certain countries, however, respect for diplomatic privilege and immunity has diminished and one cannot but take a grave view of that state of affairs. That, however, is no concern of this Bill, and I mention it by way of contrast, because those who have entered into agreements to provide these immunities in connection with the Council of Europe are democratic countries of like mind as ourselves and can be trusted beyond doubt to carry out the obligations into which they have entered. We do not wish to lag behind in this respect in the


Council of Europe, and so I commend the Bill to the House.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, began by describing it as a simple Bill but, at the end of his speech, he referred to it as a confusing one to read. I feel that the last description is the more accurate one and that the majority of hon. Members who look at this Bill will find it extremely difficult to understand what it is all about. I wish the hon. Gentleman had given some reason for the omission from the Bill of any Explanatory Memorandum. There is usually an Explanatory Memorandum indicating the purpose which the Bill is intended to achieve, and I do not see why that has been departed from in this instance. Indeed, such a Memorandum might have served a useful purpose and made the objects of the Bill clearer than the speech of the hon. Member. Nor is there a Financial Memorandum. Are we to take it that the passage of this Bill will not impose any financial burden? Both those matters ought to have been dealt with.
It is a somewhat curious fact that, notwithstanding all the propaganda in recent weeks about equal shares, the first Bill this Government introduces into this House of Commons in this Parliament is one under which the Government seek to obtain power to confer privileges on individuals. It is, in fact, the second Diplomatic Privileges Bill introduced since 1945 and the third since I have been a Member of this House. All have the same common object, to implement an agreement entered into by the Government of this country with governments of other countries to extend diplomatic privileges and immunities to members and staffs of international organisations to which this country and other countries belong. As the hon. Gentleman said, the basis of this is that the extension should be reciprocal.
We cannot, by anything we do in this House of Commons, confer any privileges upon our representatives when they go to Strasbourg. It should be made quite clear that all this Bill does is to confer on the Government power to extend

diplomatic privileges and immunities to people within Great Britain. It must be reciprocal, as the hon. Gentleman said and it is essential that similar privileges and immunities should be extended by other countries to British nationals attending meetings of these international bodies and British nationals on their staffs.
While we in this country have, since 1945, extended diplomatic privileges into new fields, at the same time the normal area of diplomatic privileges in many countries have been very considerably restricted. The answer which the hon. Gentleman gave yesterday, shows in what a very small area in certain countries our diplomats can now enjoy any freedom or diplomatic privileges. Today we are concerned with the extension of diplomatic privilege to people who come to this country and I am sure the House will agree that any proposed extension of privileges and immunities should be the subject of very close and careful examination. In one of his more effective moments the Minister of Health said—and it is perfectly truthful and. I entirely agree:
when we confer immunities upon certain people we take away rights from British subjects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th Sept. 1944; Vol. 403, c. 364.]
We on this side of the House do not dissent from the object of this Measure; that is to say, to extend privileges and immunities to the Council of Europe, to the representatives of its members and its secretariat. The Statute of the Council of Europe was very clear and concise in its terms. It was made on 5th May last year and I would remind the House of what it said. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:
The Council of Europe, representatives of Members and the Secretariat shall enjoy in the territories of its Members such privileges and immunities as are reasonably necessary for the fulfilment of their functions. These immunities shall include immunity for all representatives in the Consultative Assembly from arrest and all legal proceedings in the territories of all Members in respect of words spoken and votes cast in the debates of the Assembly of its committees or commissions.
That was followed by the Agreement to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, the General Agreement on privileges and immunities, Command Paper 7780. That is also a very clear document. The object of this Bill, we understand, is to implement that Agreement, but it is a


curious fact that there is not a single reference in it to the Council of Europe. I do not understand why this Bill is so dissimilar from the Bill introduced by the Socialist Government in 1946. The Title to the 1946 Act reads as follows:
An Act to amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, in connection with the general convention of privileges and immunities of the United Nations approved at the first General Assembly thereof and in connection with certain resolutions taken at the said General Assembly.
As I say, this Bill contains no reference to the Council of Europe, but is merely to amend the Diplomatic Privileges Extension Act, o 1944. Why was not the Title of this Bill, "to amend in connection with the general agreement on privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe "? I fear that the answer is that while the principal object of the Bill is to enable the General Agreement to be implemented, the Bill in fact goes further than that and will, I understand, enable His Majesty's Government, by Order in Council, to axtend diplomatic privileges and immunities not only to the Council of Europe, its representatives and its secretariat, but also to any organisation of which the United Kingdom, or His Majesty's Government and any foreign sovereign power or its government are members.
Under this Bill power could be taken to extend diplomatic privilege to any other such organisation. I think that is quite clear. Have the Government any other organisations in mind? If they have, what are they? If not, why is it that this Bill is not drafted in the same way as was the 1946 Bill, which related in its Title to the United Nations? Why is it of a more general character in this instance? If there are no other organisations in mind, it would appear that the Government are seeking to take wider powers than they themselves really require. If this Bill became an Act in its present form, it would be possible, by Order in Council, to extend diplomatic privileges to our representatives on and the international staff of the General Postal Union set up under the Treaty of 1874. I do not think it will be possible to extend it by Order of the Council to the International Federation of Trade Unions, or' anything of that sort, but we would like to be clear on the precise scope of this Measure

On reading the Bill in conjunction with other statutes, it appears that the Government are seeking to gain a general power for extending diplomatic privileges and immunities to any organisation of which the United Kingdom and another country are members and not just to extend it to the Council of Europe and the Consultative Assembly.
What exactly is meant by the phrase:
an organisation of which … the United Kingdom is a member"?
His Majesty's Government is a member of the Council of Europe. They were parties to the Statute and I am not sure at the moment whether there is any real importance in the inclusion of the phrase:
an organisation of which … the United Kingdom is a member, and I am not at all sure to what kind of organisation this application is limited.
Bearing in mind the departure from the form of the 1946 Act, I suggest that this power to apply the powers under this Bill to other organisations is of particular importance. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up this Debate, if this Bill becomes an Act, how the powers granted under it will be exercised. How will it operate? There will have to be an Order in Council. If one looks at the Schedule of the 1946 Act one sees that the categories are divided into three. First, there is the organisation itself, in subsection 1 (2, a) and then there are the higher officers of the organisation and the representatives of member governments, which will be amended by this Bill to include those who are representatives but not of the member governments. That is the second category, and the third is a lower category of officers and servants of the organisation. Representatives of this country to the Consultative Assembly would obviously come into category two. One sees, by reading the Schedule of this Bill, that that category, number two, is extended to cover them.
Then one sees that those coming in that category can have the following immunities and privileges set out in Part II of the Second Schedule (B) of the 1946 Act:
The like immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty.
The like inviolability of residence as is accorded to such an envoy.
The like exemption or relief from taxes as is accorded to such an envoy.


I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear to me that the effect of passing this Bill in its present form would be that these exemptions and privileges could be extended to all our representatives on the Consultative Assembly.
At what moment will those representatives begin to enjoy the privileges which will be conferred upon them under an Order in Council? Under this Bill there must be an Order in Council, the contents of which we shall see. Our representatives have been nominated—I am not sure if that is the right word. The Prime Minister yesterday announced who they would be. At what moment will the privileges commence to operate? Will it only be when they leave these shores or the airport? At what moment will they cease to enjoy those privileges? That ought to have been made clear to us when the Second Reading of the Bill was moved. I suggest for consideration before the Committee stage that, bearing in mind the amendment made by this Bill to the First Schedule of the 1946 Act, it will also be necessary to make some amendment to the heading of Part II of the Second Schedule (B) of the 1946 Act, as amended. I have mentioned that point so that the hon. Gentleman can give consideration to it; it is really a Committee point.
We ought to be told the precise effect of the Bill in regard to taxation. If the conferring of diplomatic privileges upon our representatives on the Consultative Assembly affords any relief from the present heavy burden of taxation, I am sure there will he great competition for appointment.
I wish now to say a word or two about staffs and the officers of the organisation. In moving the Second Reading I thought that the hon. Gentleman—I may have heard him wrongly—represented that this Bill only extended to representatives on the Consultative Assembly. If he looks at the Schedule to the Bill he will see that it extends beyond that to cover the staffs of such representatives also. Under Section 17 of the General Agreement I see that the Secretary-General can specify the categories of officials to which the provisions of Section 18 shall apply. I am not sure whether this Bill as at present drafted will enable an Order in Council

to apply to the categories of officials so specified by the Secretary-General. I should like to know whether that is so or not.
Section 18 sets out the various immunities which those officials so specified will be entitled to have. I would ask whether the procedure which is contemplated means that His Majesty's Government will have to grant those immunities to all persons so specified by the Secretary-General? Does it mean that this House is parting with its power in that matter or will each official be specifically referred to in an Order in Council against which we can pray if we think fit? We ought to be clear upon that point.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's observations about consolidation. A case fur a consolidation Measure will certainly arise immediately upon the passage of this Bill. I hope that consolidation will be done very promptly. I would also say that strong as is the case for consolidation, there is a much stronger case at the present time for a review and reconsideration of the whole field of diplomatic privilege. Have the Government any power now to restrict the area in this country in which diplomatic privileges can be exercised? There was recently a decision it the High Court in which the plaintiff sought damages for a gross libel published in a weekly newspaper, and he was unable to obtain any satisfaction for the grave injury he had suffered because it was held that the publishing agency, the Tass Agency, was a Department of a foreign State and was immune from process.
A newspaper published in this country by a British printer in a foreign language for a foreign embassy might contain a libel. In that case the embassy would be immune under diplomatic privilege, but the printers would still be liable for the libel. I do not consider that to be a satisfactory position, and I am glad to know that last autumn an Inter-Departmental Committee was set up to consider it. It is unfortunate that that committee has apparently not reported in time to enable this Bill to amend the law with regard to that matter.
In the last few years diplomatic privilege has grown quite a lot in this country. It might interest the House to be reminded that in 1939 there were 294 cars which were entitled to bear the letters "C.D." upon them; in 1949 that number had


risen to 780. Privilege has also been extended considerably in the field of taxation. In the 1944 Act, largely as a result of the efforts made by the present Minister of Health and the Minister of Works, a provision was inserted in the 1944 Act to the effect that there should be no exemption from taxes or rates upon any person who is a British subject and whose usual place of abode is in the United Kingdom. When the 1946 Measure was introduced that provision was deleted, and we said something about it at the time. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can tell us how many British subjects whose usual place of abode is in this country have been relieved from taxation since 1946 in consequence of that alteration. I should also like to ask how many are likely to be relieved under Orders in Council made under this Bill? I think we ought to be told a little about that.
I wish to say a word about the undertaking to which the hon. Gentleman referred in moving the Second Reading. I am sorry he did not quote the undertaking accurately; it was far wider than he said. It is set out in volume 426 of HANSARD, and the then Minister of State said this. This is the undertaking:
His Majesty's Government will not make an Order in Council under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill now under discussion, giving privileges and immunities which could not be given under the 1944 Act in favour of any existing international organisation (other than the United Nations itself), unless and until the privileges and immunities of the organisation in question have been unified in accordance with the Assembly resolution on this subject, or in favour of any new international organisation unless that international organisation has been brought into relationship with the United Nations organisation and the procedure of the Resolution of the United Nations Assembly has been applied to determine its immunities and privileges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 25th July, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 375.]
That was a very general undertaking, and in my view no privileges could have been conferred upon anyone attending the Consultative Assembly, or the Council of Europe, apart from further statutory provisions without a breach of that undertaking.
I hope the hon. Gentleman when he winds up this Debate will answer all the questions I have put to him. I would reiterate that it is our desire to see privileges and immunities extended to the Council of Europe, its representatives and secretariat, but we are concerned to see

that this Bill does not go further than is necessary to achieve that purpose. if the hon. Gentleman can satisfy us about all those matters I think I can say to him that this Bill will have a smoother and a less prolonged passage than the one in 1946.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. Paget: There are two points I wish to raise. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) brought in a little confusion by his reference to the Tass case. Of course, the Tass case had nothing at all to do with diplomatic privilege.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I never said it was diplomatic privilege; I said it was immunity from process.

Mr. Paget: I accept that correction. Of course, it is quite a different question. Our courts do not claim jurisdiction over the action of foreign governments, whether we recognise them diplomatically or not. De facto, a government exercising authority is not something over which the courts exercise jurisdiction. I entirely agree that it is a matter which might very well be reconsidered, and now that governments do go in for such purely trading activities I feel that our courts ought to exercise a wider jurisdiction in that respect. But that is nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
The question I wish to raise is that diplomatic privilege does not merely give somebody immunity from acts of the government. It also gives immunity from process brought by a private citizen. For instance, if somebody has diplomatic privilege and drives on the right-hand side of the road, as he is accustomed to do in his own country, and knocks somebody down here, that person who is injured cannot bring an action to recover damages against the person who knocked him down, even though, in effect, the defendant is really a British insurance company. That difficulty is overcome by the government in question waiving diplomatic privilege.
Here we understand that protection is not only to representatives of governments, but to representatives of countries. I am not quite certain what that means. If a man is accredited and given diplo-


matic privilege because he represents France, but is not a representative of the Government of France, who then is in a position to waive diplomatic privilege in the sort of case which I have mentioned—the case where a private individual is injured?
There may be a perfectly simple answer to this, but I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us. Of course, one way of getting over it might be that when the Order in Council is introduced it might be confined to diplomatic privilege with regard to an act of government, but not extended to process brought by an individual for individual injuries. I am not quite clear how it works, but I feel that it is a point which ought to be borne in mind.

11.57 a.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I listened with care to the unintelligent essay read out by the Under-Secretary which, I imagine, had been prepared by the "back-room boys" in the Foreign Office. I think we ought to make speeches in this House and not read essays. The Foreign Office are always a little unfortunate when they go in for legislation because they have had very little practice at the job. When the essay was being read out, I thought I was just waking up from a sleep which began in 1944, when I heard a somewhat similar essay read by Sir Donald Somervell, then the Attorney-General.
I think it was I who started the criticism of the Bill of 1944. We had a very happy time on that day. We had the notable assistance of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Health and the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Works. I am also delighted to see present today the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) because he joined in the fray, and we had a most successful day. Very soon the then Secretary of State my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was in such a state of confusion that he thought the best thing to do was to move the adjournment of the Debate. Then we had a six-week interval, I think until they had collected, from Hot Springs, or Dumbarton Oaks, or wherever he was, the right hon. Gentleman who is now one of

the Conservative Members for Hull. As a result of 'this long time, the Foreign Office realised that the original Bill was thoroughly bad. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) also took an active part in improving that Bill.
I want to know what this Bill is about, because the essay which was read out was not very informative. I sat in the Library for an hour the other day trying to read this Bill, and the 1944 Bill, and the 1946 Bill; and I was not very successful. I could not turn it into any kind of coherent English. That may be because I have not been trained as a lawyer. Hon. Members who look at the Bill will see that originally it was, "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom." Then in this Bill they have turned it round and the reference is to "the United Kingdom or His Majesty's Government." I do not quite understand that. What is "the United Kingdom"? I know of no corporate body called "the United Kingdom," unless it is the Crown. When we go abroad, if we are chosen to go on these missions, do we represent "the United Kingdom"? If so, what do we represent? So far as I know, it is embodied in the Crown.
If I am privileged to go to Strasbourg—I have no desire to, because I do not particularly approve of the Assembly held there—I shall go representing His Majesty, which I think is a rather nice category in which to go, and my privileges may be really important. They would have to have the red carpet down. I do not think that these words mean anything. That does not surprise me in the least, because it is obvious that they did not mean anything to the Under-Secretary. When I interrupted to ask him a question, he said that he was coming to that point, but he never got there.
There is the point about when these diplomatic privileges start. The point was put most effectively by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South. Where do they start—when the people get on the plane or on the ship, or are they permanent? Are they to be Hindus of a caste, with "C.D." on their brows for all time so that we can recognise them? I do not like these "C.D.s" scattered around the country too much. They all seem to drive too fast, anyway. I understand


from a French friend that in Paris people call them chiens dangereux, and that less polite people call them cochons distingués, which is an even more effective description.
We ought to know what this Bill means. I am sorry that the Minister of Health is not here. I understood from his opposition to the 1946 Act that he was afraid that they would put "C.D." on the back of his dinner jacket. We ought to have a much clearer explanation than we have had. What privileges are we conferring on Members of Parliament when they go to Strasbourg? The only point I understand is that they can make libellous statements in Strasbourg and they cannot be sued when they get back to England. If they put a few bottles of brandy in their suitcases, will privilege extend to the time when they have cleared the Customs? Will they have any privilege while they remain in the United Kingdom? If a French or Dutch member of the European Assembly comes here, will he be covered by privilege? Will he be able to put "C.D." on the back of his car?
None of these questions can be answered from the essay read out this morning. I really think that Ministers ought to master the subject of their Bills before they introduce them into this House. This is a serious assembly. We are here to legislate. If the legislation is necessary naturally we will support it, but we ought to be satisfied what it is about. The Minister ought to learn his subject before he reads out another essay to this House. There are a great many other remarks I could make, but a large number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I will not occupy the time of the House any longer.

12.3 p.m.

Mr. John E. Haire: I cannot imagine that any Debate in which the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) takes part will be described as unsuccessful. In the fortnight that this Parliament has already run he appears to have emerged as the enfant terrible. Today he has entertained us with some of the roistering which I believe made him notorious on a previous occasion. I myself thought that he was unnecessarily discourteous to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who

was making his first appearance at the Despatch Box as a junior Minister, and therefore was entitled to a certain amount of indulgence—not that he needed any. I do not know what uncertainties were left by my hon. Friend's speech, because he helped to clear up for me the same difficulties which the hon. Member for Croydon, East, found when he read the Bill. I confess that I read Clause 1 many times before I came to any sort of conclusion as to what it was all about. I was very glad indeed to have my hon. Friend's speech this morning to clear up my difficulty.
The immediate purpose of this Bill is quite clear. It is to confer certain diplomatic immunity upon representatives of those powers who participate in the Council of Europe when in this country, in the hope that we will receive reciprocal privileges when our representatives go to Strasbourg.

Sir H. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman is quite clear, perhaps he will clear up the point on which I was in doubt. I understood that the Bill conferred privileges upon our representatives when they were at Strasbourg, and that anything they said there which would have been unprivileged in England was protected. It is clear that the essay of the Under-Secretary has produced a different effect upon the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haire: I do not claim any greater intelligence than the hon. Member for Croydon, East. It is clear to me that we in this House can only legislate for our own country. Indeed, the purpose of this Bill is to confer diplomatic privileges upon representatives of nations taking part in the Assembly when they are here. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Northants. South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I would say that my belief is that the Title of this Bill was deliberately left open so that we should not have a succession of similar Bills. such as those we had in 1944, 1946 and this one. After all, we in this House are given protection by reason of the fact that any increase of diplomatic privilege is brought before us as an Order in Council and we have the right to pray against it.
I should like to ask whether this Bill includes immediate immunity to members of the Military Committees set up under


the North Atlantic and Brussels Pacts. If the Bill is not left open so that we can have an Order in Council to include those persons, are we to have another Bill for that purpose should the need arise? It seems to me that by omitting some such sub-title as that which the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, said was included in the 1946 Measure, we enable this Bill to govern such further extensions.
I consider that this little Bill will fulfil a useful function as furthering the trend introduced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his tenure of office to extend privileges to members of Western European democratic Powers. He has removed a number of old restrictions, such as visa requirements, and improved freedom of movement between certain countries in Western Europe. I applaud that and think that this Bill is giving a similar wise extension in the diplomatic field. It is certainly in distinct contrast to the withdrawal of freedom of movement and diplomatic privileges in certain other countries.
While I do not think that it would be entirely in order to refer to it, it is by way of illustration that I mention what is happening in Eastern Europe. Our diplomats there are being seriously restricted in their movement and demands made for our representatives to be removed. We have had a whole series of these cases in the last two or three months. We have had the Sanders and Voegler trial in Budapest which was a travesty of justice to British and American representatives. We have recently had the demand by the Hungarian Government that Mr. Southy our Commercial attaché in Budapest, and the military attaché there should be withdrawn. I regret to say that apparently His Majesty's Government have accepted that request and withdrawn these officials. We noted in an answer given yesterday the very serious restriction of liberty of movement of our diplomatic representatives which is taking place in Eastern Europe. I hope that this Bill will be an example to Eastern Europe of how we in Western Europe behave in the matter of extending diplomatic privileges.

12.9 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: I shall not trouble the

House by speaking at great length because many people are interested, but I would say, in general, that I suppose that down to about 1944 the law of privilege and immunity had been pretty well worked out by a series of statutes and cases. One then had to deal with the new problem of bodies which are not State bodies but which require some protection. Attempts to do that have been made by two statutes and now by this Bill.
I should like to state what seems to be the common opinion on both sides of the House as to the line we ought to take. There is no doubt that cases like the Tass case—whether it was State privilege or diplomatic immunity does not matter—and other events which are taking place in Eastern Europe, profoundly affect our minds. Undoubtedly, they lay upon us the burden of showing a good example and not a bad one. Also, they leave on my mind the impression that I feel disposed to keep a tight hand on any extensions of privilege of this sort to see that we do not give away more than we mean to give at a given stage.
One does not want to do anything at all to impose difficulties on the Council of Europe. The immediate object of the Bill is to benefit that institution. I do not like the way the Bill is drawn. I think, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), that the Measure of 1946 was a much happier one, and I am bound to say that I think the draftsman who prepared this Bill for us has laid himself open to the criticism which Macaulay inflicted on the young Mr. Gladstone. I think most of us remember the quotation. He said:
The truth is that Mr. Gladstone has fallen Into an error very common among men of less talents than his own. It is not unusual for a person, who is eager to prove a particular proposition, to assume a major of huge extent, which includes that particular proposition, without ever reflecting that it includes a great deal more.
The Bill is drafted in general terms and I am very much afraid that those terms may include more than we understand, and, very likely, more than the promoters of the Bill intend. Therefore, I sincerely hope that between now and the Committee stage the matter may be very carefully considered, and that drafting of a far more precise character than we have here may be adopted.
I suppose it is always difficult for legislation by reference to be clear and understandable, but when I find members of the senior branch of my own profession having great difficulty in making head or tail of it, and when I find myself, with some little experience of the law, having the same difficulty, it strikes me as being a confession that the resources of civilisation are pretty nearly exhausted. It surely ought to be possible at this time of day for Parliamentary draftsmen to tackle the matter in such a way that a Bill makes some attempt at saying what it intends to do.
The technique, apparently, is to add obscurity to obscurity, and then, at the end, to have a consolidating Act to clear the matter up. If the labour of consolidation has to be undertaken, why not do it now? Why not try to bring forward a Bill in similar terms? Why not do it by relating to the specific object what is really sought to be done? If the object is to look after the Council of Europe, it should not be beyond the wit of man or Parliamentary draftsmen to devise some words that will achieve that means without, possibly, doing a great deal more.
I do not associate myself with the ambitious suggestion of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) that a Minister should understand a Bill before he brings it forward. If a project has been through the hands of a Parliamentary draftsman, and has, therefore, been rendered almost totally unintelligible, to expect that the Minister, when the matter comes before the House, should really understand it is to expect something really impossible. The best for which one can hope is that the Minister may learn the Bill as it goes along, and that, by the time it has gone through its various stages and we reach the Third Reading he will understand it. This to my mind is a very obscure Bill dealing with what is really a very critical matter, and I beg the Minister to consider very carefully whether he cannot recast it and get it into something like shape between now and the Committee stage.

12.14 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I am sure that we on this side of the House would like to welcome the first appearance at the Despatch Box of the Parlia-

mentary Secretary, and to tell him that we have a good deal of sympathy with him in his attempt to explain what is a very complicated Bill. I was not surprised that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) should have made the suggestion that it would have been preferable had there been an Explanatory Memorandum. The only thing I would say about such a memorandum is that I have a feeling that it would have had to be considerably longer than the Bill it was attempting to explain.
No one can possibly take any exception to this Bill in so far as the Council of Europe is concerned. If the Bill had merely carried out our obligations under Article 40 of the Council's Statute, there would have been no objection at all. We are anxious to carry out those obligations, and we all wish that such privileges as may be necessary should be extended to Members who go to Strasbourg. There is no dispute about that. Although I am not a legal luminary or expert in the interpretation of Bills, it seems to me, if I may say so with great respect, that this Bill goes far too wide. I ask the Minister of State. when he comes to reply, to explain to the House exactly how wide it does go.
Here we have the old tendency to demand powers far wider than are necessary for a particular purpose, and then, when challenged, to say, "Oh well, the House must leave it to the good sense of the Minister concerned not to abuse the wide powers for which he is asking in the Bill." Would the Minister of State please tell us when he replies what is the exact interpretation of Clause 1 (2) where it says:
shall extend to representatives … on any organ of such an organisation and members of any committee of such an organisation. …
How widely could that be interpreted? Is it, for instance, intended to extend diplomatic privileges to the various members of the different Services now engaged in Paris in fulfilment of the Brussels Treaty under the chairmanship of Field Marshal Montgomery'? When those officers, French or Belgian or whatever nationality they may be, come to England, is it intended under this Bill that they should be given diplomatic immunity? Could it be extended as wide as that? So far as I can see from the Bill, had there been an inter-


national atomic energy commission, it would, in some respects, have covered the notorious Dr. Fuchs.
On the wider issue, I think the Government would be well advised to consider very carefully this continued extension of diplomatic privilege. My hon. and learned Friend gave the figures of the extraordinary increase in the number of cars in this country which are now allowed carry "C.D." plates. Between 1945 and 1950 the number of persons entitled to diplomatic privilege has increased from 1,557 to 1,795. There are all sorts of organisations whose functions are in no sense technically diplomatic which now come under the general umbrella of foreign Embassies in London in a manner which would have been unthought of and unheard of before the war.
Various hon. Members have referred to what was perhaps a test case, the libel action in which the Tass Agency was involved, where that Agency obtained a Certificate from the Soviet Ambassador stating that it was a department of the Soviet State. Their case was upheld in the courts. As the result of a Debate that took place at the end of November last year in another place, raised, I think, by Lord Vansittart, the Lord Chancellor, in replying for the Government, announced the establishment of this interdepartmental committee to inquire into the whole position. Can we be told how far this departmental committee has proceeded, when its report is likely to be published and what its terms of reference are? So far as I know, that information and those details, which are important, have never been given to the House.
The basis of all diplomatic privilege is contained in the word the Under-Secretary of State used—"Reciprocity." The Government must bear this in mind. We see the staff of the Soviet Embassy increased year by year. The position of United Kingdom representatives, both in the Soviet Union and in the satellite countries, is daily becoming more and more difficult. The facilities granted to them become more restricted. We had a whole list of restrictions in answer to a Question asked yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish). Even His Majesty's Ambassador to Moscow cannot go over 30 miles

outside that city without permission, which is rarely forthcoming.
Nobody suggests that one can take that sort of retaliatory measure unless one establishes a police state. Nobody suggests for a moment that the Soviet Ambassador should be restricted within a radius of 50 miles of London. But I do beg the Minister of State to consider very carefully what sort of retaliatory measures can be effectively taken and enforced. Not only on the ground of security but also on the ground of prestige it is essential that the whole field of diplomatic privilege should be based upon this one issue of reciprocity.
I have no objection to this Bill in respect of the Council of Europe, but I hope the Minister of State will tell us exactly how wide it goes and what other organisations could be brought technically within the scope of this Bill.

12.22 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I should like to add my protest about the obscurity of this Measure, which has not been elucidated by the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State who opened this Debate. I congratulate him upon his appointment. I do not blame him for being unable to elucidate this Bill which has made a rather difficult issue more fogged than it was before. As the Bill involves a question of privilege, it is very right that this House should examine it closely before parting with it.
The first question I want to raise relates to the extent to which privilege is to be granted. It should be fully understood that this is a privilege Bill and that it also includes immunities which can be granted to British subjects, Members of this House, when they are appointed as delegates to the Council of Europe. That is said to be the object of the Bill, but, as I understand it, the Bill goes a great deal further than that. It enables Orders in Council to be effected which will include all kinds of representatives of other organisations. That is the explanation why the Title does not follow the lines of the previous Bill, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) pointed out. The previous Bill had a Title and a Preamble which made it clear that it was intended to cover only those affected by the United Nations


organisation. This Bill has no such Title. Of course, it should have a Title saying it affects those who are delegates to the Council of Europe. It does not say so, and the Bill goes far wider than that.
The International Time-Table Conference met in my constituency last year. It meets in some different country every year. Its members fix the time-tables of trains, with the very laudable intention that they should coincide with each other. Under this Bill, would it not be possible for an Order in Council to be made giving diplomatic immunity to all the delegates attending that conference? It seems to me it would be so.
As the Bill stands at the moment, privilege can be granted by simply effecting an Order in Council, and the affirmative procedure is not in the Bill. It should be amended to include the affirmative procedure rather than that it should depend upon the negative procedure. There would be in such an Order the status of the person to whom the privilege is extended, but it would not define the extent to which that privilege goes. We should be given an answer about where this privilege begins and ends.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised a pertinent point. Suppose a motor car is used by a British delegate to the Council of Europe and he drives from London to Dover on his way to Strasbourg and is involved in a collision on that journey. As far as I can see, there would be nothing to prevent diplomatic immunity being claimed in respect of that collision, and nobody could enforce a waiver, as is done in ordinary cases of diplomatic privilege. The insurance company would be entitled to plead diplomatic privilege, and the injured person would be prevented from recovering any damages at all.
If I am right—and I think I am—that immunity would start certainly from the moment the delegate started on his journey. That would create a very unfortunate situation. There is another question. At what time does the immunity end? Suppose the delegate returns from the Continent. It seems that for all time he is protected, in respect of anything he may have said or done while attending the Council. I should like some assurance as to the time

in which he ceases to have protection in respect of other matters.
The nature of the privileges is fairly well defined, but there is no indication in this Bill where they begin and end. It is quite clear there is an all-time protection in respect of words spoken or actions done at the Council, but suppose a delegate returning from the Council commits a Customs offence. I see the agreement specifically states that his baggage cannot be seized. Would he be immune from legal process in respect of a Customs offence? I do not believe the Minister of State will be able to answer these questions. The Bill does not make them clear at all, nor, I think, have they been considered for a moment.
We think these matters ought to be investigated at this stage. If the Government want to introduce a Bill to protect delegates to the Council of Europe—and it is agreed that it must be done—why not bring in a Bill which says so? Nothing would be simpler than to bring in a one-Clause Bill, containing words to the effect that the customary privileges should be extended to delegates attending the Council of Europe while they are exercising such functions. That is the only purpose, and that would be sufficient. The fact that that procedure is not adopted certainly gives this Bill a sinister ring and makes one believe its purpose is far wider than it is said to be. I am left in considerable doubt about the exact extent of the Bill and whether it is really true that it is limited to the Council of Europe. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with these questions, because at the moment I think they are disturbing a considerable number of Members.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Bell: I wish to add my expression of anxiety to those of the hon. and learned Members for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and Hove (Mr. Marlowe) on this question of waiver. It seems to me that in introducing this Bill to meet the need of the Council of Europe, the Government have introduced an entirely new principle into the old law of diplomatic privilege. As I understand it, the position will be that we shall be setting up people as ambassadors in their own right so that there is nobody who can waive their privilege except themselves. This may be an entirely


inadvertent result of the Measure which the Government are introducing. I do not think they have even considered it, and I hope that the Minister will assist us on this point when he replies, although, with all respect to him, I do not think that he will be able to do so because he has been presented with a Bill the consequences of which have not been considered in this respect.
It is said that the unlimited extension of this privilege is regulated by the fact that the Minister must come back to Parliament with his Order in Council which can be prayed against. The Order in Council comes into effect the moment it is made. It lies on the Table for 40 days, and if it is not prayed against it finally becomes law. In fact, the principal Act, the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act. 1944, provides that:
In reckoning the said period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
It is, therefore, quite obvious that if some international conference or international body of any kind were going to be held during the long Recess, it would be quite competent for the Government to put out an Order in Council covering that body, its members and the members of its committees, and the whole thing would be over and everybody would be back home having completed their tour of diplomatic immunity, before this House ever had an opportunity to consider the Order in Council. We might come back here in October and pray against it, and annul it but it would not matter very much by then.
If we pass an empowering Bill of this nature, for that is what this is, we shall be cutting out the legislative process and allowing the Government to extend the principle of diplomatic immunity indefinitely. I appreciate to some extent the inconvenience of coming back to this House every time a new international organisation is set up, but I would point out that this question of extending diplomatic privilege is a very important matter indeed, and in my opinion it should never be done except by the passing of an Act of Parliament.
We hear a great deal about privilege from the benches opposite. We some-

times hear about hereditary privilege and things like that. But what we are seeing nowadays is the coming into existence of a new privileged official class, which is growing every day. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) referred to the increasing number of people entitled to put "C.D." on their backs or fronts. We are coming to the position when those of us who are not ambassadors will have to wear tallies round our necks, showing our status of subordination and villeinage. I am not losing sight of the fact that the Order in Council may confer a kind of junior diplomatic immunity upon these representatives—making them not quite the same as an ambassador but a sort of minor ambassador—but I think that the unlimited extension of this class of people without reference back to this House should not be encouraged.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will take this Bill back to his Department and seriously consider it before bringing it to this House again. Measures to extend diplomatic privileges are not in the same category as other Acts of Parliament. By this Measure the Government are setting up a class of people who are above the law, and such a class should only be extended by a deliberate legislative Act of all the organs of the Legislature.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: From the course which this Debate has taken it seems to me to be quite clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House are in agreement with the general purposes of the Measure as explained by the Under-Secretary of State—that is to say, to extend special privileges to the Council of Europe. I intervene only to express some doubts whether this Bill as at present drafted is best designed to achieve that purpose. It is a short non-controversial Bill, but none the less it is one of very great constitutional importance, and I agree so much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bucks, South (Mr. Bell) has just said, namely, that where there is a proposal to extend diplomatic privilege and immunity it must have the most careful consideration by this House.
One has but to look at some of the fundamental privileges and immunities which attach to the diplomatic agent to see how important it is not to extend


these rights to other categories without the greatest care. There is a right of personal inviolability. Then there is the legal fiction which makes the house of a diplomatic agent, for example an embassy, to be regarded as within the territory of the country from which he is accredited. The position is that such an agent is not subject to the Government of the receiving Power. Several of my hon. Friends have pointed out that he is exempt from taxation, from certain local rates and from civil jurisdiction. He cannot sue or be sued, neither can his goods be seized, and he is also exempt from criminal jurisdiction.
A short survey of the situation makes it very clear that we ought to be very careful in extending these rights and privileges. The Under-Secretary in presenting this Bill and moving the Second Reading reminded the House of the first statutory recognition of such rights and privileges—a statute in the reign of Queen Anne. He did not, however, remind the House of the reason why that enactment was passed, but it may be recalled that it was because the Russian Ambassador of that day had been arrested for some trifling debt, and as a consequence that statute was placed upon the Statute Book. I think the Preamble might be of interest to the House. It says:
Whereas several turbulent and disorderly persons having in a most outrageous manner insulted the person of His Excellency Andrew Artemonowitz Matueof, Ambassador Extraordinary of His Czarish Majesty. Emperor of Great Russia, Her Majesty's good Friend and Ally, by arresting him, and taking him by violence out of his coach in the public street, and detaining him in custody for several hours in contempt of the protection granted by Her Majesty contrary to the Law of Nations, and in prejudice of the rights and privileges which Ambassadors and other public Ministers, authorised and received as such. have at all times been thereby possessed of, and ought to be kept sacred and inviolable. …
Those were the reasons for the first statutory recognition of these rights and privileges in public Ministers. Then the classification of public Ministers was undertaken by international agreement in the early part of the nineteenth century.
I would point out, if I may, some of the other more recent examples of extensions of such privilege, because not all of them have been mentioned so far in this Debate. I shall be as brief as I can.
The first modern example came at the end of the First World War when, in the Treaty of Versailles, there were requirements that special rights should be accorded to representatives of the members of the League of Nations and to officers of the League when engaged upon the business of the League. The way in which that was put into effect was this. The Treaty was laid before Parliament and then there was a short enactment giving to His Majesty power by Order in Council to put the Treaty into effect. That is one way in which these matters can be done.
The much more recent example of further extension came in 1941 when, as the House will well recall, we received in this country Governments or provisional Governments or national committees of foreign countries which had been overrun and occupied. There again this House accorded to representatives of those bodies a measure of diplomatic status. The last two examples before the present Bill have already been mentioned—in 1944 an extension specially, as I understand it, for the benefit of U.N.R.R.A. and in 1946 for the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. What I am anxious to do at this moment, arising out of some points which have been made by hon. Members, is to remind the House that by the Act of 1944, Section 4, this question of reciprocity, which is plainly causing concern to many hon. Members, is dealt with. By that Section it is provided:
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be construed as precluding His Majesty from declining to accord immunities or privileges to, or from withdrawing immunities or privileges from, nationals or representatives of any Power on the ground that that Power is failing to accord corresponding immunities or privileges to British nationals or representatives.
It is made plain by statute that this principle of reciprocity is one which is recognised and one which, it may well be thought by this House, should be used without hesitation in appropriate circumstances.
Finally, on this subject of the statutes which have preceded the present Bill, the Title and indeed the Preamble of the 1946 Act, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said, made it plain as to the exact category of persons who were to have the benefits of the privileges


and made it plain what was the purpose of the enactment, namely to give those privileges to the United Nations and to the International Court of Justice.
I would submit that from an examination of the problem there emerge three very important principles. The first is that when this House is considering the further extension of such privileges it is absolutely essential to make clear and to identify beyond any doubt those who are to become entitled under the Measure. Secondly, it is also often necessary to insist that they shall be entitled to the privileges only during such time as they are engaged upon the business of the organisation in question. Thirdly, on the principle of reciprocity—and I have referred to the 1944 Act—this principle should be maintained and safeguarded.
My doubts about the present Bill are really these. It gives to a much wider category of persons than necessary the special privileges which are envisaged in the 1944 Act. I cannot myself see why we should not introduce here, either by Title or by Preamble or both, some clear explanation of who is to become entitled to the privileges and also the real purpose of the Measure. I hope the Minister of State will consider that point before the Committee stage. Further, would the Minister of State be good enough to give us some assurance that the operation of these privileges is to take effect only while those who become entitled are upon the business of the Council of Europe? I think that must be so and I ask not because I have any doubt about it, but because I do not think the Bill says so.
In conclusion, I would add my plea for a little clearer draftsmanship, if it can be achieved. We all know the difficulties and I am afraid that most of us have been guilty of approving obscure language in the past. I ask this not because such language is not without its use to members of my profession; the point is that these Bills sometimes go through rather quickly. I hope it may be possible to clarify the position as the time goes on and I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary refer to the possibility of consolidation. For my part, I would repeat that I support in full the purpose of this Measure, but I hope to see a good deal of clarification and simplification as the Bill proceeds upon its way.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: The 1946 Act was in one respect a model for all Parliamentary Bills because in the Schedule to the 1946 Act amendments to the Act of 1944 were reproduced so that one could see exactly how the Schedule stood as amended. On several occasions the draftsmen were congratulated upon having done that in the Act of 1946. Is it not possible to add a Schedule to this Bill which would incorporate the amendments which this Bill makes in the Act of 1944? It was done in 1946 and was of inestimable benefit. It would also go more than half way towards the consolidation which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned in his speech introducing this Bill. Incidentally, I should like to join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman upon his appointment.
When we have a whole succession of these Acts, I think it is very necessary to roll them into one as we come to the last. Out of that, I think, arises the difficulty with which this House is confronted today. We had extensions in 1941, 1944, 1946, and now in 1950. One hon. Member opposite said that this Bill would avoid the necessity of further Bills. We do not think the Government need apologise for bringing in a number of Bills, one after the other, on the subject of extensions of diplomatic privileges because we think it is an important matter which should be subject to Parliamentary consideration. Therefore, as new organisations are created, the Bills should be brought in.
One difficulty which I think confronts the House here is that under this Bill wider powers are taken than are necessary to carry out the agreement with regard to the privileges of the Committee of Ministers and the representatives at the Council of Europe. For instance, the point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) about the possibility of a representative—I think he was assuming a British representative—knocking somebody down. It is quite clear, I think, that if only the agreement in the White Paper is carried out, that difficulty will not arise because there the British representatives have the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament. The foreign representatives have immunity from arrest and detention


In that connection the point raised by several Members does arise. Suppose we have a foreign representative on the Council of Europe who is in England and who, we will say, drives dangerously while the Consultative Assembly is going on. He is, I think, clearly entitled to immunity from arrest and detention. Who is to raise his privilege? That is a very important point, I think, because in the case of diplomats, ambassadors in many, many cases refuse to accord them privileges which have been created, and which are lowered in connection with diplomats, not by themselves but by their ambassadors or governments. In the case of a foreign representative to the Council of Europe, however, who happens to be in England while the session goes on, he is privileged from criminal proceedings, as I read the agreement; he is not privileged from civil proceedings.
I imagine that the answer of the Minister of State will be that this Bill is intended to carry out the agreement which was arrived at on an international basis. However, I wonder whether he will tell us if he agrees that, taken literally, wider immunity could be given by this Bill—could, not will? That is the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) made, that this Bill goes further than is necessary. Would he then, if he agrees with that, consider it desirable to cut down the powers accorded by this Bill to conform more closely with the international agreement? He may answer that we should require another Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill in a short time, but I do not think that is a valid object, for the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend.
There are two questions I want to ask him about the privileges accorded by the international agreement. He will remember that his hon. Friend who introduced the Bill said it was to carry out the agreement and Articles 13, 14 and 15. Now, Article 13 is an administrative concession, but the Minister will notice there that it says that representatives or their substitutes at Strasbourg shall be accorded, in the matter of exchange control, the same facilities as are accorded to senior officials serving abroad on temporary official duties. Does the Minister think that that was the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government at the last session at Strasbourg? Does he think that all substi-

tutes were accorded the same exchange control facilities as senior officials privileged abroad on temporary duty? Did His Majesty's Government suddenly revoke senior officials' exchange control facilities in the presence of a lot of foreigners on the steps of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg?
The second thing is that Article 14 is an international agreement which accords immunity for words spoken by representatives. Is there, perhaps, a danger there? For instance, consider a person who has been a Communist or a supporter of the Communist Party, and who may have disavowed his Communism—but, of course, people who disavow Communism do not necessarily cease to believe in it—or have been, perhaps, ordered by the Communist Party to disavow it. Assume such a person, who disavowed Communism, to be a representative of the British Parliament nominated by the British Government to go to the Council of Europe. Suppose he got up in the Council of Europe and revealed the secrets of the atom bomb in furtherance of Communist policy, or that he did something else which was contrary to the Official Secrets Act, or which evidenced the intention to commit treason. Assume that representative at Strasbourg were to do that. As I conceive it, he would be entirely protected. Well, that would be a fact which would have emerged from this agreement.
Is there a danger in that? Have the Government considered it? It is an international agreement, and obviously we have to implement it, but if it ever comes up for review, or if limitations are agreed between the signatories concerning it, this matter could be borne in mind—that there should be some provision to take care of people whom we do not necessarily suspect as Communists or supporters of the Communist Party but who may have disavowed their Communism but about whom we still cannot be certain. I should like the Minister to enlighten us about that.
I add my plea to the point which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South. This Bill should not go further than is necessary. I think I see the point about Clause 1 (1). I must say it is not desirable to go one step further than is necessary under the international agreement.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

12.57 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): Though I have to speak to benches—at any rate for a moment—somewhat empty, I should like to thank hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate for having treated this Bill in a very reasonable way. I myself was present during the Debates in 1946, and I read the Debates on the Bill of 1944; and there was a certain amount of heat engendered and a good deal—I think, on looking back—of misunderstanding of what was intended first by the Coalition Government and then by the succeeding Labour Government.
This is a technical and thorny problem, and I think some of the things that have been raised would be more appropriately dealt with at the Committee stage; nevertheless, I agree that it is right that this House should examine with the greatest care any Bill which proposes to extend, in however small a way, the privileges which are to be enjoyed either by our own nationals or by foreigners in this country, and I make no complaint of the close examination which this Bill is obviously getting. I was glad to note that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in his opening remarks said he would raise no dispute about the avowed purpose of the Bill, and subsequently confined himself to the question whether we had adopted the right method of achieving the purpose. That was repeated by several other hon. Members.
Therefore, I think I need not go very much into the purpose of the Bill, except to say that the intention is really a simple one. It is, first, that proper privileges and immunities should be made available for those who come as representatives to the Consultative Assembly at Strasbourg. That is really the main object of the Bill, and the main reason why the Bill had to be brought in without delay. Secondly, it is to make it clear, if it was not already clear—and this is something of a technical point—and at any rate to put it beyond doubt, that our system of immunities and privileges can cover international bodies of which the Members are described as States and not Governments.
It is questionable, perhaps, to what extent that Amendment was necessary, but I think it raises no real question of principle. The statutes of different organisation are expressed in different ways. In some cases the State is referred to as "the Member" and in other cases the Government of a State, and I think it is as well that there should be no confusion.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that this particular Bill is to enable other international organisations to be covered, in addition to the Council of Europe?

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I may come to that in a moment. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall deal with that point.
First, I should like to say a word on the question of obscurity. I have suffered, like other hon. Members, from having to sort out the provisions of this complicated Bill, because, short as it is, it is as a matter of drafting not very easy to follow. I am sorry that no Explanatory Memorandum was provided, though I do think there was some substance in the point made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), that it might have been difficult to provide an Explanatory Memorandum that was not at any rate as long as the Bill itself. Perhaps there should have been an Explanatory Memorandum, and I should like to say to the House that I am sorry we did not think of having one.
So far as the complaint of obscurity refers to the fact that this Bill is drafted by reference to at least two other Acts, I think the point is covered by the explanation made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—that we regard this as preliminary to consolidation. I can assure the House that that is not just a pious hope; that we are in fact fairly far advanced in consideration of a consolidating Measure, and I have every reason to believe that there will be one introduced before very long, if the House agrees to this particular Bill.

Mr. Foster: Does that include the Act of Queen Anne?

Mr. Younger: I could not answer, without notice, how far back it will go. I understood it was only the more recent Acts, but perhaps it will include any other


Statutes that go further back. Of course, not all the law relating to privileges and immunities is included in Statutes at all, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware.
As regards the method of doing this by means of a rather general Bill followed by more specific Orders in Council, this has been the subject of some criticism, on both this and on previous occasions. On this occasion my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary repeated the undertaking given on the earlier occasions, that the Orders in Council would not in the granting of privileges and immunities go beyond what it was necessary to grant in fulfilment of His Majesty's Government's obligation under relevant international agreements.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: rose—

Mr. Younger: I am sure I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say. I shall refer to Part II, which the hon. and learned Gentleman read out, but so far as the question of the use of an Order in Council is concerned, my hon. Friend did give the necessary assurance. Perhaps the best thing I could do—and I will, by so doing, answer a number of questions which have been raised—is to read out the two quite short Articles of the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, upon which the Order in Council, which will have to be made if this Bill becomes law, will be based so far as the Consultative Assembly is concerned. This will, I think, make clear what are the privileges it is intended to grant to the representatives to the Consultative Assembly should this Bill become law. They are contained in Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the General Agreement.
Article 13 requires only administrative action and has no relationship to this Bill. Article 14 reads as follows:
Representatives to the Consultative Assembly and their substitutes shall be immune from all official interrogation and from arrest and all legal proceedings in respect of words spoken or votes cast by them in the exercise of their functions.
I would point out, lest there should be any misunderstanding, that the first part, the immunity, is in respect of words spoken or votes cast, and only in that respect.
Article 15—and this answers some of the questions, particularly in regard to the times during which the immunities which this Article grants will apply—reads:
During the sessions of the Consultative Assembly, the representatives to the Assembly and their substitutes, whether they be Members of Parliament or not, shall enjoy:—
(a) on their national territory, the immunities accorded in those countries to Members of Parliament.
That is to say, a British representative to the Consultative Assembly would enjoy in this country only privileges corresponding to those enjoyed by Members of this Parliament. It goes on:
(b) on the territory of all other Member States, exemption from arrest and prosecution.
That is the immunity which we would be asked to grant to foreign representatives to the Consultative Assembly if they came to our country during the sessions of the Consultative Assembly. The Articles goes on:
This immunity also applies when they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the Consultative Assembly. It does not, however, apply when representatives and their substitutes are found committing, attempting to commit, or just having committed an offence. nor in cases where the Assembly has waived the immunity.
If hon. Members will consider the text of those Articles they will see that that text answers a good many of the points which were raised.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am most interested in what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I should like to ask two questions on it, if I may. First, what happens with regard to the sittings of the committees? Secondly, if what he is saying is right, does it follow that Part II of the Second Schedule, as amended, of the 1946 Act will not apply, except to a very limited extent, to these representatives? I read Part II out before. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that there will be no inviolability of residence given to the representatives or the staff, and no exemption or relief from taxes?—because under the Bill as it is drafted there will be power, whether or not the earlier Acts are amended, to give those three immunities set out in Part II of the Second Schedule, as amended, of the 1946 Act. If the hon. Gentleman has the Act in front of him he will see what I am referring to quicker than if I read k out. If


that be so, if it is only to cover this restricted area, it strengthens our suggestion that this Bill should be redrafted.

Mr. Younger: It is the case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, that the proposed Order in Council will contain only the immunities which are required by the Articles I have just read out, and we do not intend that they should cover the points set out in the Second Schedule to the 1946 Act, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred, except in so far as it is necessary to do so for this agreement. The basis of the Order in Council is not the whole scope of the immunities and privileges which could be granted under that Schedule. The basis will be the Articles to which I have referred.
Surely it is clearly understood, as it has been on previous occasions, that we are asking for a power which, theoretically, would enable the Government to grant immunities and privileges beyond what may appear in a particular agreement relating to a particular organisation. The reason for that is that there are very large numbers of organisations involved; that the agreements relating to them are not always the same; and that it would be necessary to have a very large number of separate statutes if we simply dealt with each particular organisation, or each particular category of immunities and privileges separately. This is, of course, an old issue which has been discussed when dealing with all the previous Acts, and it is the basis of the existing Acts to which this Bill provides only a small amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this before the Committee stage. This really is not the same issue as arose in any of the other discussions. Here, as I understand it, under Article 15 the immunity is to be the immunity of Members of Parliament. The effect of the Bill is to amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1946, and one of the immunities which can be given there is:
The like immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign ….
That, I should have thought, would not in turn empower the granting of the same

immunities as are enjoyed by a Member of Parliament. I ask the hon. Gentleman to see that full consideration is given to this point before we reach the Committee stage.

Mr. Younger: I will certainly give that undertaking. The terms, of course, do not appear to correspond, but I think it would be found—I am only giving my personal view, and without any notice—that the privileges enjoyed by a Member of Parliament are so much less than those enjoyed by a foreign envoy that if we have the power to grant the privileges appropriate to a foreign envoy we could certainly grant those appropriate to a Member of Parliament. However, I will have that looked into before we reach the next stage.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman has referred to privileges listed in the Agreement of the Council of Europe, but that is no part of the Bill, is not contained in the Schedule, and is in no way made part of the law of this country. Those privileges would, therefore, have no effect in the courts of this country. Would the hon. Gentleman consider incorporating those privileges, as listed in the Agreement, in a Schedule or bringing them in in some way to make them effective?

Mr. Younger: That is the old point, which has arisen on all previous occasions. The position adopted by the existing laws, which we now seek to amend, is that the precise nature of the privileges and immunities in respect of each organisation is incorporated, not in the Act, but in the Orders in Council.
I am well aware that this is a matter on which not all hon. Members may be in agreement, but it is the system already applied to the whole of the existing code. It was accepted—it may be, in some quarters with reluctance—both in 1944 and in 1946 for the previous Bills. I think the House will appreciate that this is only an extremely small amendment to the existing code and I appeal to hon. Members to take the view that it would be quite inappropriate to attempt now to introduce something which would be wholly out of accord with the rest of the legislation quite recently approved by the House.
I should like to call attention to the final part of Article 15, to which I re-


ferred, relating to waiver. I was asked by one of my hon. Friends, who would be capable of waiving, in an appropriate case, the diplomatic immunity of a member of the Consultative Assembly. The answer is. the Assembly itself.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Mr. Manningham-Buller indicated dissent.

Mr. Younger: As I understand it, there is provision for the Consultative Assembly to waive the privileges of its members.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Articles he will see that it can only be waived where the representatives
are found committing, attempting to commit or just having committed an offence.
If there is delay in discovery of the offence, apparently it could not be waived.

Mr. Younger: I do not think that is the correct interpretation. The words which the hon. and learned Member read out are an alternative to the final clause, which says:
nor in cases where the Assembly has waived the immunity.
The cases where the Assembly may waive the immunity are quite different from the limited and alternative class of case which the hon. and learned Member has read out.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not want to become involved in a technical point, but surely, the Assembly sits only once a year. How is it competent for the Assembly to exercise its waiver when an incident occurs not during its sessions?

Mr. Younger: This is one of the disadvantages of discussing a document which not all hon. Members may have in their possession. These privileges, as I have already made clear by the extracts I have read, exist only during the sessions of the Consultative Assembly.

Sir H. Williams: rose—

Mr. Younger: I have given way already.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has not understood the point.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I asked a question about committees.

Mr. Younger: That is a matter I shall have to look into. I am not quite clear, but it seems to me that under this Article, which we will seek to implement in the Order in Council, the only privileges which we shall be granting will be those during the sessions of the Consultative Assembly. That is a very important point, which I will examine carefully before we reach the next stage. It does not, of course, arise so much on the drafting of the Bill as on the drafting of the Order in Council which follows.
The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) raised a rather curious point in which he suggested that there should be—I presume he meant in the Bill or in the Order in Council—some limitation on the immunity granted in respect of words spoken in the Assembly. He postulated the case where something improper, which, but for the immunities, would be of a criminal nature, might be said by a member of the Assembly. I should have thought that the answer would be that. as I believe would be the case with this House, it would be for the Assembly of which the person was a member to deal with it. I should have thought that in a proper case the immunity would he waived, and that it would be open to the Assembly to waive the immunity.
I have been asked to what other organisations, apart from the Council of Europe—

Mr. J. Foster: The hon. Gentleman will notice that the waiver of the Assembly does not apply to the Article 14. Why does he think that the Assembly could waive the immunity?

Mr. Younger: I think I am right in saying that all the immunities of the members can be waived by the Consultative Assembly.

Mr. Bell: rose—

Mr. Younger: I have already given way about a dozen times. We can come back to some of these minor questions, but I am trying to answer within a reasonable time the main points which have been raised.
I have been asked whether the Bill will enable the Government to extend immunities to members over a very wide range of organisations other than the Council of Europe. Mention was made of certain bodies such as the Staffs of the


Brussels Treaty Powers Organisation, the Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and so on. The only extension which the Bill affords is an extension to organisations whose members are States as well as those whose members are Governments. Already, under the earlier Acts, there are powers to grant immunities to Governmental representatives on organisations of which the Governments are members. I think that the text of the 1944 Act shows that to be so.
Therefore, the particular point relating, for instance, to the Atlantic Treaty Powers has, I think, no relevance to this amending Bill. In fact, so far as I am aware, no such diplomatic privileges have been granted. No Order in Council has been submitted to grant immunities or privileges to members of those organisations. The normal procedure which would be adopted in the case of any new international organisation—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Brussels Treaty?

Mr. Younger: In each case, when an organisation comes up for consideration an Order in Council is submitted; comes before the House, and the House has an opportunity to judge upon it. So far as I am aware, no objection was taken from any side of the House in the last Parliament to any of the Orders in Council submitted since the 1946 Act.
It is not asking too much of hon. Members to accept the proposition that no Government wishes unnecessarily to grant large numbers of diplomatic immunities to members of international organisations. The Government would only do so where there were international commitments so to do, in which case Members on all sides of the House would wish the Government to implement that international commitment. Since the House does in any event on each separate occasion get an opportunity of considering the organisation in question and the nature of the immunities and privileges which it is proposed to grant under the procedure of the previous Acts, I hope that hon. Members will not think that that issue is particularly relevant to this Amending Bill.
If there is any complaint to be made it is against the Acts of Parliament already

on the Statute Book and not against this Bill. There have been complaints about what has been called the steady growth of diplomatic privileges and the number of people who now enjoy them compared with formerly. Reference has been made to a committee which is reviewing the question of privilege and immunity. I would ask hon. Members to appreciate that while there may in individual instances be reason to think that some group is becoming unduly inflated, that there are more Members claiming privilege than might be strictly necessary, the basic cause for the increase in the number of persons is that there is far more international and commercial business and a far wider range of business dealt with through diplomatic channels now than in the past. That is, of course, in addition to the great growth of international organisations. We are well aware, however, that this matter must be watched.
I have not the text with me, but I will tell the House in general terms what are the terms of reference of the Committee sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Somerville on this question of immunity. The Committee is considering, first, the present law of the United Kingdom with regard to State immunity and whether it is wider than it need be, secondly, the law with regard to diplomatic immunity and whether it has gone wider than is strictly necessary.
That is a fairly wide field of investigation. Unfortunately there is no likelihood that the committee will be reporting within the next few weeks, and it will be some little time before we can expect a full report on this exceedingly complicated problem. It seemed wrong, therefore, in respect of that alive and active body, the Council of Europe, which is the immediate cause for our bringing forward this Bill, to wait until possibly another assembly at Strasbourg had taken place.
One question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Northwich indicated that he had not been entirely satisfied with all the diplomatic immunities which might have been granted to some of the representatives on the previous occasion. I cannot answer that because I do not know the details but, if he is correct,


it provides another argument for me in suggesting to this House that the sensible thing to do is to produce, before the next assembly at Strasbourg, the necessary amendment to the Acts to enable us to cover that session before the consolidation of this branch of the law takes place.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I asked the hon. Gentleman to deal with two questions relating to taxation. Can he say specifically that no relief from taxation will be given to any British subject under this Bill, and can he tell me how many British subjects have had relief from taxation in consequence of the alteration made in the 1944 Act by the 1946 Act?

Mr. Younger: I can answer the first question quite definitely. There is no proposal to exempt any British subject, or anyone, from taxation under this Bill. As regards the numbers of persons who may have received some exemption under the earlier Act, I did not come armed with that information, but I will get it for the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir H. Williams: If an accident happens on the day the Assembly adjourns and there is no one to grant a waiver before 12 months have gone by, what happens?

Mr. Younger: I suppose one could conceive of a case where an offence did not get reported until the day after the Assembly adjourned, but the immunities granted would not apply to the kind of cases mostly mentioned. Mainly they were cases of a relatively minor nature, motoring offences, and so on, where there would not be in the ordinary way any question of arrest, whereas the immunities relate to arrest. I would also refer the hon. Member to the final sentence of Article 15 which says that the immunity does not apply when representatives and their substitutes are found committing or attempting to commit or have just committed an offence. That goes quite a long way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Royle.]

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.26 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, with that modesty which is natural to the Welsh race I should crave the indulgence of the House, since it is my maiden speech as Postmaster-General. The Bill now before us is a two-Clause Bill. The Financial and Explanatory Memorandum sets out the purposes fairly clearly, but I will briefly run over them.
Clause 1 enables the Post Office to undertake £75 million of capital development, and unfortunately that has to meet our requirements until October, 1952. I was afraid that this request to the House might raise a vision in the minds of some hon. Members that we were spending too much. I hope, however, that our modesty in this connection will not earn for us a Vote of Censure over too high a rate of Government expenditure.
Clause 2 tidies up the accounting and audit arrangements in the Post Office and brings the accounting arrangements into conformity with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. In 1939 that Committee examined the position, and this is the first opportunity we have had of bringing those recommendations before the House and asking for approval of them.
In preparing for this Debate today, I naturally looked up examples of my illustrious predecessors in this office. I have been in the office only a few weeks and have not had time to familiarise myself with all the technicalities of this vast undertaking. In those circumstances I think it would be right to indicate shortly some of the outstanding achievements of this office, and afterwards indicate to the House the type of approach I shall make to the problems of the Department.
This is a massive industry. It was nationalised by the parties opposite and not by the party on this side of the House—

Sir Ronald Ross: Charles II.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That might have been true of the post, but it is certainly not true either of the telegraphs or telephones. That occurred in 1912.

Sir Herbert Williams: By the Liberals.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Liberal Party then or in the Conservative Party.

Sir H. Williams: The Conservative Party.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There have not been two minds about its continuation and, on the whole, this Department has been a credit to the nation and has done a great job. It is interesting to note that it is one of the socialised industries which makes a commercial profit, and makes it regularly, and I hope that will be acknowledged by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the credit of the Post Office. This is a vast enterprise. It employs more than 354,000 persons in this country, handles eight million letters a year, nearly 250 million parcels per annum and, in that connection—

Sir H. Williams: I take it that, as the right hon. Gentleman is describing the general activities of the Post Office and the postal services as well as the telegraph and telephone services, the Debate will be wide open?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am endeavouring to indicate the continuing processes on which the capital for which we are asking will be spent.

Sir H. Williams: This has nothing to do with letters; it only deals with the telegraphs and telephones. As the right hon. Gentleman has brought in the number of letters they deliver, I take it that I shall be in order if I deal with the question of how slowly they deliver them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I imagine that the letters have to be linked up with the same service.

Mr. Ness Edwards: What I wanted to do was to give the statistics, before coming in detail to the two matters with which this request for capital deals.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My right hon. Friend must have made a mistake in the statistics in any case, because I get about eight million letters a year myself. I think it should be 8,000 million.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I apologise to my hon. Friend: it is 8,000 million letters per annum and nearly 250 million parcels. These are all handled in the buildings which are concerned in this matter. The amount of parcels is 30 per cent. more than it was pre-war. The Post Office has five million telephone stations, more than 3,000 million local telephone calls per annum and 240 million trunk telephone calls, and there are 425 million postal orders issued every year. Half of this money will be spent upon buildings in which other functions are being carried out. One of those functions is concerned with the Post Office Savings Bank and more than half the people in the nation are depositing money in that bank. There are nearly 100 million deposit or withdrawal transactions taking place each year. We issue something like 12 million broadcast receiving licences and issue more than 285,000 television licences.
Those are a few of the important statistics in this vast picture of social service which is undertaken by a loyal and devoted band of employees on behalf of the whole nation. In this way this great Department does touch every single member of the community and renders a service to every member of the community.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: "Touch" is the word.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not know whether we are to make this a provocative Debate, but when one talks about "touching" I am quite prepared to yield the palm to hon. Members opposite. I know that sometimes, all too frequently, it is not the service that is rendered by the Department which is appreciated but its failings which are noted. Reference has been made to failure to deliver a letter. I wonder if hon. Members really realise the number of times they get their letters "on the dot." People are working under all sorts of conditions and weather and travelling on all sorts of roads to remote parts of the country, yet there is this regular delivery of letters.
even to the most remote household. While there may be some criticism—and I agree there is room for it in a number of cases—the value of this service to the community has never been as fully appreciated as it ought to be. It has always been taken for granted that the postman and the Post Office are there, always available, but any small shortcoming, which happens very occasionally, becomes a matter of contention and obliterates all the regular good service given to the community.
I do not want to deal with the general ramifications of the work of the Post Office, on which the money is to be spent, but two things in relation to the Post Office are uppermost in the minds of the general public today. The first is the provision of telephones and the telephone service. The second, to which I shall make reference, is television. I propose to confine what I have to say to those two activities of the Post Office, for which this money is being provided by this Bill. The greater past of the capital that is requested is destined for telecommunications, particularly the telephone. Perhaps it would not be unwise, or uncharitable, on my part to refer to the fact that the propaganda of one of my predecessors, Sir Kingsley Wood, has continued to have effect in this country. He has been regarded as one of our most successful Postmasters-General. He conducted a great campaign to make the country telephone-conscious. I am afraid his propaganda has continued and we are feeling its effects today.
My predecessors in this House have explained the phenomenal way in which the public demand for telephones has grown and was stimulated by the war. Prevailing economic circumstances and financial stringency have made it impossible for us to keep pace with the demand and the telephone appetite is far greater than our capacity to satisfy it. I suppose that is innate in the financial circumstances we are facing. The more we take for telephones and telephone buildings, the less capital, the less materials and the less skilled labour will be made available for housing. In spreading this capital expenditure we have to choose what we are going to spend on the Post Office. The Post Office, unfortunately, has to take its place in the queue and in the order of priority.
I wish we were able to ask the House for a greater sum of money than that contained in this Bill, a sum of money which we must have if we are ever to overtake and satisfy the demand of potential subscribers for telephones. There is a very substantial waiting list for the telephone service. I must be frank with the House because I think this is one of the greatest problems before me in the post I now hold. Within present limitations I am afraid I cannot make any great impact on this problem. Capital investment, buildings, scarce raw materials and skilled labour are all involved and hon. Members on both sides of the House know how difficult it is to spread what is available over so wide an area.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman mention the scarce raw materials to which he made reference?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Copper and tin—

Sir H. Williams: There is plenty—

Mr. Ness Edwards: We want them, not for consumption in this country, but, as the hon. Member knows, to go into articles to be exported in order to help close the dollar gap. I thought that was elementary and that the hon. Member would have known that without unnecessary interruption, but the natural modesty of a Welshman always comes to the top in this House.
There was a waiting list of 480,000 people at the end of 1949. Of that number 64,164 could not be supplied because of the lack of exchange equipment, 217,000 could not be supplied because of the lack of underground cables and 126,000 could not be supplied because both exchange equipment and underground plant are not available.
I turn to the question of external construction, the building of exchanges. There are 7,423 applicants, mainly farmers, for whom we cannot provide service until we can afford to be far more lavish with wires and telegraph poles.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Do take it that the present waiting list is 480,000? I did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's figures.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The figures I gave were those of the waiting list at the end


of 1949. Others have since been added to it and I think I should be right in saying that the list is growing, but I have no later figures. Of the numbers I have mentioned, 309,000 are applications for residential telephones and 173,900 are for business telephones. In this demand for private residential telephones we see expressed the economic prosperity of our country. The capacity to pay for a telephone appears to be associated with this developing telephone consciousness. I think it is a tribute generally to the way in which the country is building up its economy that we have this demand for so many residential telephones.
To solve this problem would involve a capital expenditure of at least £300 million. In view of the Debates that have taken place in this House this week, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that the Post Office cannot undertake capital expenditure to that extent, and therefore within the normal methods of solving this problem, there is no hope of satisfying the demands of the people on the waiting list for some considerable time ahead.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Does not the figure which my right hon. Friend has given mean a capital expenditure of £650 per telephone? Is that figure really put forward?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry to have to digress on the technical side. In the short time I have been in the Department I have been trying to familiarise myself with the technical side of it. In the time of one of my predecessors, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, all the spare lines of the main cable system were used and it then became necessary to lay more lines. Until there were more main cables small branches could not be built. The position in this country is that we have used practically all our cable line capacity. During the war there was a period when we laid scarcely any main cables, indeed scarcely any cables except for war purposes. We now have to start with a completely new system, to start from the bottom, to build new exchanges and lay new cables. It is then that we shall be able to start bringing on to the telephone system all those who desire to be subscribers.

Mr. Hale: I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties and I do not wish to

embarrass him, but I understand that there is now a waiting list of 465,000, and that to meet the requirements of that waiting list the capital expenditure involved would be £300 million. If that is correct, it is perfectly clear that any revenue that can come from the waiting would-be subscribers can never conceivably pay even the interest on the capital expenditure involved. I ask my hon. Friend to look at his figures again because I feel there must be an error.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I see no difficulty in the matter and I hope that when hon. Members hear my further explanation they, too, will see no difficulty. Any cable is laid not in relation to the present demand but to the potential demand. It is useless laying a cable today to meet present demands and then in two years' time having to lay another cable to meet new demands. Normal planning must have regard to potential as well as to present demand; it would be utter folly to plan only on the basis of present demand. It will be necessary to spend a sum of the order I have mentioned to meet the present demand and the potential demand.

Sir H. Williams: What total plant would the £300 million cover? If we can be told that, we can do the arithmetic ourselves.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that is asking a quite unreasonable question.

Sir H. Williams: Upon what is the calculation based?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is based upon the assessed potential demand.

Sir H. Williams: What is it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Member will restrain himself, he will get more answers much more quickly than he will by belligerent questions. When we reach a later stage, I undertake to give the details on which that calculation has been made. I asked specially for an assessment from our engineers of the amount of capital we should require to solve this problem in a proper way. I hope to be able some day to go to the Chancellor and say "There is a grave and pressing problem in this country, and to solve it in reasonable time I must have so much capital allocated to the Post Office." It was along those lines that I


asked the Department to work in connection with the assessment of the amount of capital expenditure which would be required.
Let me carry the matter one stage further. Telephones connected in this country numbered 832,000 in 1946, 711,000 in 1947, 674,000 in 1948 and 720,000 in 1949. Despite this growing waiting list, the installation of telephones in the last four years has been larger in number that in the eight years preceding the war. That in itself is an indication that the Post Office has been working with great energy and making great efforts in order to provide a telephone service for the people of this country. This has been achieved in part, as I explained previously, by taking up every available link of the cable. Now cables are overloaded and automatic exchanges have no room for any further connections. That is the reason why the capital development in the future must, if we are to meet this demand, be greater per telephone for the next few years than it has been in the past. Cost of materials and wages have increased and there are general increases which are associated with any project of this kind.
The Post Office is conscious that under present conditions it will take a long time to satisfy all these telephone applicants and we have therefore attempted some palliatives. If we cannot provide a telephone for the private subscriber, then we try to provide a communal telephone. If we cannot provide one for the squire, at least we want to see that the village gets a telephone. The policy has been to take telephones out of the village post offices and put them in kiosks, where they will be available to the whole of the community all the time. Despite the fact that we should like to give the squire a telephone, we must give it to the community first, because the community must take first place. In the last two years 5,491 kiosks have been provided of which number 2,354 are in the rural areas. In this way we have provided kiosks which do give telephone service day and night to the inhabitants of those areas.
The other palliative method which we have adopted is that of asking private subscribers to share their lines. I know there are disadvantages about this, but I am not satisfied that all those disadvantages cannot be eliminated. I am

taking up this matter with the engineers in the Post Office to see whether it is possible to devise some means of giving to the sharing subscriber the same communication privacy as is enjoyed by the individual subscriber. I would ask present subscribers who have private lines to consider that they can help others by sharing their lines. So far, over 200,000 people are sharing. The more subscribers we can get to adopt the shared service the greater help and the more facilities can be made available to the community.
I shall not talk about the long-distance telephones this afternoon, but in that matter there is a very good record to the credit of the Post Office and their engineers. Neither shall I deal today with the question of telegraphs, which is a diminishing and an unprofitable service, but which is an essential social service, especially for poor people. We shall therefore continue to carry this service, whilst looking at ways and means to increase its revenue and efficiency; and not allowing it, as it were, to take some of the fat from the telephone service in order to maintain it.
I wish to say a word or two about television, which is a matter of very great concern to a very great number of people in this country. I have always looked upon it as one of the most vital contributions to our social life of the future. I must keep closely to my brief in this matter, because so much capital expenditure is involved, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me in that connection. As is known, we have two stations functioning and the station at Holme Moss in Yorkshire is in the course of construction. The number of licensed viewers is over 285,000, and I hope that those who have not yet taken out a licence will hurry up and do so. On this last aspect of capital development, the Post Office, as hon. Members are aware, is responsible for providing the links between television transmitting stations; and some part of the money concerned in this Bill is for this purpose.
I am fully aware of the potential value of television, both in the life of our own people, in our national prestige and, what is equally vital in these days, in the markets of the world. Our reputation as an exporting country can be enhanced by every hit of progress we can make in


this very important and intensely modern development. In this field, as in so many others, we must endeavour to keep abreast of the world. I think we are doing very well, and our native genius shows itself to excellent purpose in the development of this industry. It is an appropriate occasion, therefore, for me to announce that its provision should enable us to ensure that in little more than two years' time television should be made available to about 70 per cent. of the population of Britain.
As has been already announced, we hope to open the Holme Moss station by the middle of 1951. The site has been approved for the Scottish station, and we hope that this will be open by about the end of 1951. The search of the B.B.C. for a site for a station in Wales goes on, and it is planned to open that station in 1952. That should please the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).

Sir H. Williams: I do not live there now,

Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought, after reading the biography of the hon. Member, that he still had an affection for the place from which he came. The B.B.C. intend that building should proceed on all three stations during this year and next year.

Sir R. Ross: What about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ness Edwards: On questions of detail perhaps I had better keep closely to my brief. After all, I do not wish to invite the House to move a Vote of Censure on the Post Office for too high a rate of capital expenditure.
I think the House will agree that this is very satisfactory progress towards the target of 80 per cent. of the population of this island to be reached by the end of 1954, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President at Radiolympia last year. We have looked carefully at our television programme in the face of all the restrictions. The Government attach considerable importance to this development and are most anxious to give to the B.B.C., to the Post Office, and, what is vital for planning, to the electronics industry, a firm basis for playing their respective parts in these plans. We have therefore decided to go ahead with

the programme I have mentioned. Naturally, I cannot prophesy what will happen in the economic situation in the future, but I can assure the House that the Government are firmly resolved to do everything they can to carry this programme through. That, I hope, will be of interest to the House and will give satisfaction to the country, and to the industry which is making such rapid progress in the development of our television export trade.
I regret that I have detained the House so long, but I am afraid that as a new Postmaster-General I may have developed over-enthusiasm for the Department to which I have gone. I must say that I have been stimulated by those around me in that Department and by their high sense of social service and social responsibility. If I may use the phrase, they are a fine bunch of persons, anxious to do well by this country; anxious to maintain the national prestige; anxious to make the biggest and best service they can make available for the people of this country. I think it is due to the organised employees in the Post Office to pay a tribute to their co-operation and to their loyalty in this great service.
We have now established throughout the service a system of joint production committees and these committees at all levels are helping us—and this is where the matter is in order—in the application of our plans and in our spending in such a way as to obtain the most efficient results. It is very difficult for some trade union leaders in the present wage-freeze situation to advocate joint production, and one ought to pay a tribute to the trade union leaders among the Post Office workers for the remarkable contribution they are making at some great inconvenience to themselves in this connection. I approach this job with this attitude of mind. I want to see a service in the Post Office of which the whole nation can be proud. I want us to take a greater pride in the Post Office and I want more smiles on both sides of the counter.

Sir R. Ross: And on both sides of the Channel.

Mr. Ness Edwards: After what happened in Belfast last Saturday, I should have thought that an Irishman would have kept quiet when a Welshman was talking.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: At the outset of his remarks the Minister claimed the indulgence of the House for his maiden speech as Postmaster-General. I am sure that we were glad to give him that indulgence, but I must utter the warning that, as with a new Member, it is the last time he will get it. I should add that if he claims indulgence for shortcomings, he will hardly expect to receive any praise for what has been done.
The right hon. Gentleman started by referring to the Post Office as a nationalised industry which had not been nationalised by his political party. He also commented that it made a profit. Of course, we have always taken the view on these benches that the Post Office must be a State-run institution for very special reasons which apply to nothing else. We were reminded that the Post Office was first nationalised by Charles II. I hope that the original Charter which used to hang in the room of the Assistant Postmaster-General, and which was given by Charles II for quieting the Postmaster-General in the execution of his office, is still there.
The Minister said that the Post Office made a profit. This is a case where it is perfectly easy to make a profit by adjusting the rates. Many of us take the view that many Post Office rates might be reconsidered. I am not at all sure that we should rest content with the 2½d. postage rate or with the present telephone charges. Indeed, in these days when the cry is for lower costs, it seems to me that the oldest nationalised institution might well consider whether it can give a lead to the country in that respect.
This Bill is a necessary Measure to provide for capital developments for the Post Office. That being the case, we on this side of the House do not oppose it. However, I have been looking at the Debates which we had two years ago when the last of these Bills was before the House. The general feature then, as now, was the question of the shortage of telephones. For that reason, as many of us in all parts of the House are still getting complaints about the shortage of telephones, I was most interested in the figures which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. Two years ago the waiting list was roughly 450,000, and I am sorry to

hear that, two years later, the list is up to about 480,000 in spite of the fact that in the intervening period some £60 million must have been spent upon the development of the telephone service. One had hoped that an impression would have been made.
I suppose that what has happened is that a large number of extra applications have been received. The figure that I should like to have, if we can get it, is that of the number of applications dealt with in the last two years. This touches upon a point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) about the capital cost per application. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to get out some figures on that point. It would be most interesting to see those figures, if not today then upon the following stages of the Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I said that in 1948 674,000 people were given telephones and in 1949 the figure was 720,000.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the number of those who have got telephones has increased by far less than that, according to the accounts?

Mr. Grimston: When we have had some time to study the figures, we can get some line on the cost per application over the past two years and relate it to the figure which the Minister gave to cover the whole demand in future.
I should like to make special reference to the position of farmers. Two years ago we were told that the number of farmers on the waiting list was 11,000. Of course, that is a very small proportion of the outstanding applications but theirs is very much a priority requirement in these days. We were told two years ago that it was hoped that practically all the farmer applicants would have been provided for by the end of last year. I think the Minister said that the present waiting list of farmers amounted to about 7,000. I should like to know the number of farmers who have been given the service during the last two years so that I can see how the list has grown. What does the right hon. Gentleman think he can do to dispose of the 7,000 farmer applicants who remain?—because we regard those applications as being of particular importance in the light of our food situation.
It is true that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is circumscribed by the limitations on capital expenditure. It is also true to say that much of the expenditure which is required on buildings, duct laying and that sort of thing, is of a similar type to that required in house building. We certainly do not ask that house building should be prejudiced in favour of telephones. Although some of the expenditure on plant is not of the same nature, we agree that a great deal of it is. We do not want telephones to take priority over pressing housing needs. Having said that, I must say that it is essential to see that the maximum return of telephone service is given for present expenditure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that matter.
I should like to give an illustration. It is highly desirable that trunk lines should be laid underground. I have had many cases of telephone refusals in my constituency where service cannot be provided because another underground cable must be laid. I wonder whether it is possible to use an overhead line temporarily and to provide a service in that way instead of waiting until the cable is laid. It seems worth considering whether any shortening of the waiting period can be achieved by installing a temporary overhead service. That might have been done—I do not know—but I put the illustration to the Minister. I suggest that in view of the terrific length of time which will elapse before the demands can be satisfied, every step should be taken to provide a service by temporary means.
I have three other questions on technical detail. Has any progress been made with the system whereby a subscriber will be able to dial straight through on trunk calls—the trunk demand service. On the question of telegraphs, can we be told what progress has been made with the switching method which was introduced some time ago. It was said that that would save a great deal of time in the transmission of telegrams. The Postmaster-General mentioned the fact that telegraphs were still losing money. I would like to know what are the prospects of reintroducing the greeting service, because that is a money getter. It is another of the late Sir Kingsley Wood's efforts, and it seems to

me that the time must now be approaching when that service, very much liked by the public and which we hesitated to remove until the very last moment even during the war years, could not be reintroduced. It would certainly help the financial aspect of the telegraph service.
I also want to deal for one moment with the postal side. We should like to hear—we were told about helicopters and the restoration of the postal service two years ago—how that experiment has proceeded, whether it has given the results hoped for, and how it is getting on. Of course, it is true that very little of this money is to be spent on postal services as indicated by the Financial Memorandum. Any information we could have about the development of that side of the postal service we should be very glad to have.
I come to another point upon which I want to ask a question, and that is how the development of the submarine repeater is progressing. Hon. Members may know that if this can be developed it will open up a field of trans-oceanic telephony of very great importance, having, I think, a strategic bearing as well. Two years ago, two repeaters were being tested, one to Northern Ireland and one to Germany. It would be of interest to know how that experiment has succeeded, and how far it is now possible to extend it.
I should certainly have a great deal more to say if the Postmaster-General had unlimited funds at his disposal, but we are bound to recognise the limitations imposed upon him, and it would not be in order on this Bill to discuss why they are imposed and to give our views on them. I will admit that in the Post Office it is a difficult problem to know how to allocate the funds available to the Postmaster-General, both from the point of view of manufacturing capacity and how that is to be used, and so on. But I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to do all he can to bring the maximum amount of service, particularly telephone service, into use on the lines I have previously indicated in my speech. I also hope that some of this money will continue to be devoted to research and development, because that is going to have a great bearing on the service which can be given in the future. I should like to know whether research and develop-


meat at Dollis Hill is being seriously affected by the cuts in capital expenditure.
Finally, I should certainly like to associate myself with the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made about the Post Office staff, whose work, of course, I saw during war-time. But when all is said and done, the right hon. Gentleman is going to spend about £70 million over the next two years, or at least that is his intention, and we shall expect to see some results, even though the sum may be short of what he could spend had he the money. My hon. Friends will have various points to raise, and I myself have no more to say at the moment except that I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, who I believe is to wind up this Debate, will give us as much information as possible, and anything which he cannot give us today we shall be glad to have during the latter stages of the Bill.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston), who spoke as reasonably as he always does, dealt almost entirely with the telephone and telegraph side of the Post Office. As I want to confine myself chiefly to the postal side, I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks except those which he directed to my right hon. Friend congratulating him on his accession to the office of the Postmaster-General. My right hon. Friend has certainly left us in no doubt this afternoon that he is going to apply to his new job the same vigour and enthusiasm that we came to like so much in the last House of Commons in his old job. I know that he will be as helpful to hon. Members in this Parliament as he was in the last, and as was his right hon. Friend the previous Postmaster-General during the same period.
My right hon. Friend has told us that under this Bill his Department is to receive £75 million to be spent between now and October, 1952. Of that amount, £69,500,000 is to be spent on telephones and £5,500,000 on the postal and telegraph services. I am not sure in my own mind whether that is really a fair apportionment of the expenditure which is going to be involved because my feeling is that there is an enormous amount of

capital investment required on the postal side of the Post Office. I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to reassure those of us who may have some fear that the postal side is in danger of becoming the poor relation of the Department.
My right hon. Friend has talked about looking forward to October, 1952, and. in certain respects, he has looked forward a good deal beyond that point. What I should like to ask him is how far ahead is the Post Office planning. I am a little disturbed. This Bill, unlike the earlier Bill which we discussed in this House today, has a Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, and it is that Memorandum which disturbs me, because we are told in it that:
The detailed programme of expenditure and the works to be carried out in each year are subject to the approval of the Treasury.
I can understand, and it is obviously right, that general Treasury approval for expenditure of this kind should be required, but I am a little alarmed at the prospect of detailed Treasury examination from year to year of the funds which my right hon. Friend has at his disposal.
I thought that the hon. Member for Westbury was perfectly right when he said that the allocation of these sums should be a matter for the Postmaster-General. I should have thought that the right thing for this House to do would be to approve in principle the amount asked for by the Postmaster-General, after consultation with the Treasury, and to leave the actual use of that money to the discretion of my right hon. Friend and his colleague, subject, of course, to the general overriding financial controls and restraints which this House imposes on expenditure through the ordinary Parliamentary channels.
I cannot believe that any Department can work efficiently, or can plan adequately ahead, if from day to day it is subject to interference from another Department which has all the force behind it because it controls the purse strings. My right hon. Friend spoke of the need for planning ahead in respect of the laying of cables. He was perfectly right to do so of sourse. We see in the working of the Post Office today that quite a number of the difficulties under which it is labouring are a result of the fact that before the war, and earlier,


there was no adequate long-term planning on the part of the Post Office.
Whether that was due to the overriding control of the Treasury, I do not know, but hon. Members have only to look at the post offices in many of our provincial cities to see what I have in mind. There we find post offices, as indestructible as the Rock of Gibraltar, put up many years ago without any real preparation for an expansion of the postal service and with no real conception of how that service was going to develop. The result is twofold. In the first place, in many provincial post offices we get a rather unfortunate lack of adequate welfare facilities for the staff. I know that the Postmaster-General and his predecessors have done a very great deal towards improving those facilities, and the fact that they have not been able to do more is not their responsibility. The trouble is that the buildings were planned and erected without taking into account the need for proper welfare facilities for the men and women working in them. The result is that the welfare facilities and rest rooms and so on are often tucked away in the top of the building in very small rooms wholly unsuited to the purpose to which they are put.
The second result of lack of planning in the past is that you often find valuable land in the middle of towns being sterilised because it is used as sorting offices whereas it would be much more efficient for sorting offices to be sited next to the railway where it would be easier to get mail to the offices and probably easier for vans to assemble. Obviously post offices in provincial towns should be central, but there is no need for the sorting offices to be sited next door to the post offices themselves. I hope the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to assure the House that we are going ahead with real long-term planning and that the Post Office is consulting not only with the Treasury but also with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the planning authorities, and the New Towns Corporation and, not least important, with the Railway Executive.
I know the House will forgive me if I turn briefly to a more local matter and that is the position of the post office in the Rossendale Valley, with particular

reference to the need for more vans in order to provide a more efficient service, and to help the postmen responsible for the delivery of letters. I raise it for the reason that although the climate of Rossendale Valley is invigorating, warm and dry spells in the middle of winter are few and far between. I am told by the Meteorological Office that the average rainfall in Bacup is twice that in London. where the headquarters of the General Post Office is situated. The average rainfall is a third higher than the average for the whole country, and last year it was half as high again. The result is that postmen go out constantly in the most inclement weather.
The geographical situation too is difficult. In some cases postmen have to walk three or four miles to a height of more than 1,000 feet above sea level to deliver letters to hill farmers living a mile or two apart. There is an alarming incidence of sickness in the postal staff. I have not the official figures and I do not want to give figures which I would not be able to substantiate, but I hope the Postmaster-General will look into the matter and see whether the provision of more vans or the more effective use of existing vans could help. On a strictly commercial standpoint it would not be justifiable to spend money on another van but from the point of view of the health and wellbeing of men working in the post office that expenditure might be justifiable. It may well be that some co-ordination of Bacup's work with that of Rawtenstall—as is done in the case of Haslingdon—might justify the provision of more vans or might facilitate the more effective use of the present ones.
In conclusion may I say that all of us would like to associate ourselves with the tribute the Postmaster-General has paid to the staffs of the post office. We must ensure that the loyalty of these men is rewarded in the way we treat them as employees of the State, and we should see that where expenditure is under consideration they should get a fair share of what is available.

2.25 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) because once I was a candidate for that constituency and I know that the weather is very inclement


there. If the hon. Member wants some vans he can come with me. Near where I live there are far too many vans outside the South-Western District Post Office, and very often I find it difficult to get to my front door. The hon. Member is welcome to some of them.
The Postmaster-General said one of the difficulties was the shortage of raw materials. I challenge him on that. He mentioned tin and copper. One really cannot talk of a shortage of tin and copper any more. I was assured by an outstanding authority that the world demand for tin is 140,000 tons. The present output is 180,000 tons and it is likely to rise to 210,000 tons. The result is that there would be a surplus with grave economic consequences. There is no shortage of tin, copper or rubber. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned tin and copper—those are his words, not mine. If people use the wrong words they must not be disappointed at adverse criticism. There is a glut of primary commodities in the world today and the only thing in short supply is the intelligence to mobilise them.
The Postmaster-General gave us statistics showing what an immense amount of work the Post Office are doing in providing people with new telephones. He mentioned three-quarters of a million in one year and 600,000 in another. I have an interesting document in my possession—the Post Office Commercial Accounts, 1948–1949. Page 11 gives the number of stations at the end of the year. For 1947–48—I presume ending 31st March—the number was 4,653,000. A year later it was 4,919,000, an increase of 266,000. That has no relation to the three-quarter of a million the Postmaster-General mentioned.
Somebody said that what the Postmaster-General meant was not the number of new telephones but the change in the number of subscribers, which is a quite different thing. If the right hon. Gentleman leaves his house and I go in there is no need to shift the telephone. I know they ask one to sign a fresh document, and I know that the Post Office authorities try to make one pay afresh. This has been the practice for years under Governments of different parties. I have often beaten them on the argument. It is no good telling me that the Post Office have provided three-quarters of a

million, when the increase is only 266,000 for a year. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman. He is a new boy, and the backroom boys have had no time to tell him all this. In due course he will know and will make a better speech next year.
Then there is another matter, the fantastic inefficiency of the dialling system. On the average one has to dial twice. Sometimes one gets no reply at all.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Mr. Ness Edwards indicated dissent

Sir H. Williams: It is no good for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head. The big people in business never get their own telephone numbers. If the Postmaster-General would make it compulsory on all Cabinet Ministers and chairmen and managing directors of companies to get their own numbers, instead of handing the job to some poor clerk, they would learn more about the Post Office than they would by being Postmaster-General. There is something wrong technically with the system. I was told that probably the bombing had a very serious effect on these delicate instruments, not least by causing a vast amount of dust. Anyone who has been at the back of a telephone switchboard will realise how easily it can go wrong. The moving parts of the apparatus, which are rather delicate, are working much worse now than they were 10 years ago. I hope something will be done to improve them.
I agree that there has been some improvement in the toll service, which used to be fantastic. On one occasion I was ringing up my cousin who lives at South-sea. I dialled the number first for 20 minutes with no result and then I dialled "O" for the Operator for ten minutes with no result. I thought I would go higher up, and dialled the number with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar—HEA 1234—and I got through to his predecessor's secretary on duty at St. Martin's-le-Grand and explained the difficulty. He said, "I can do nothing." As I could not do anything with the general manager, I thought I would contact the chairman; I dialled Whitehall 1234 and asked for 10, Downing Street. The present Prime Minister's secretary telephoned the Victoria exchange and I was through to Southsea in three minutes. That is rather a burdensome way of getting a toll number.
The postal deliveries are fantastically bad today. If I write a letter to my constituency which is 11 miles from here and post it after 6 o'clock the chances are that it will not reach my constituency until the next afternoon. It is 11 miles from here as the crow flies, although I realise there are not many crows in these departments. I think that a letter posted in those circumstances ought to get there before the next afternoon. The same thing applies to letters posted to me. This is deplorable.
When I was a boy I lived in Cheshire, roughly 200 miles from here. From my bedroom window I could see the horse-drawn postal van coming along the side of the Dee. It used to go to Chester which was eight miles away. Our pillar box was cleared at 8.30 p.m., and our letters were delivered in London by the first post next morning. Today with all the mechanised traffic the time taken is 50 per cent. longer. There is something wrong. There is not the same zeal, vigour and energy among the people doing the job as there was 50 years ago. We have to restore that sense of obligation. It is no good talking of social service if the people do not do their jobs efficiently. Therefore, I ask the Postmaster-General to do something about that.
We are told that the Post Office makes a profit. I am not sure what is meant by "profit." In the commercial accounts £4 million a year is allowed for stamps used for receipts, and that sum is credited to the Inland Revenue and deducted from the Post Office. They charge the Postmaster-General for the buildings provided by the Office of Works, and for the stamps printed by the Stationery Office; for all the work done free of charge for Government Departments they are credited as if every letter earned 2½d. This is a notional profit. The right hon. Gentleman has never read these accounts; his predecessor prepared them. I have been studying the accounts for 25 years and I find them very useful.
When we try to see what happens about the telephone service we find that the subscribers paid in 1948–49 £22,320,000 in rentals. Government Departments notionally pay £6,789,000. The interesting thing is that notionally the rentals charged to Government

Departments are nearly a quarter of the rentals charged to the rest of the community. Is it necessary for Government Departments to have these vast numbers of telephones? I think the public ought to have the telephones. There are far too many telephones spread out in Government Departments. I do not know how many people have access to these telephones. Are they 1/10th of the population, or 1/20th? I do not know. Whatever they are, their telephone usage is two or three times as great as the man in the street who cannot get a telephone but wants one. When a Government Department wants telephones a whole army is turned loose. If someone in my constituency wants a telephone it is no use; the Post Office say "We have no cables." That excuse might have been valid five years ago, but not today. It is a measure of the incompetence with which the Post Office has been governed in the past three or four years. It is no use pretending they make a profit.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman who, according to the hon. Member for Rossendale, should not control it—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—presents us with a little book called a Financial Statement. It used to be presented by the right hon. Gentleman who is no longer the Financial Secretary, for reasons which I do not understand. It is obtainable from the Vote Office; it costs 6d. at the Stationery Office. One item is: "Post Office Vote, excess over revenue £7,361,000." The profit which everybody talks about is the notional profit, on the assumption that every letter carried free of charge by the Post Office from a Government Department has really earned 2½d. That is how the notional profit is arrived at. But in days gone by the Post Office used to show a cash surplus sometimes as much as £10 million a year in relief of taxation. In this year of grace, if the Estimates turn out to be right there will be a deficit of £7,361,000. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not shaking my head.

Sir H. Williams: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I thought he was shaking his head and that he had been taking notice.
I should like to speak at greater length, but I shall not do so for two reasons. The first reason is that other hon. Friends of mine want to speak, and the other reason is that long before the next election I have engaged myself for a public appointment at 3 o'clock today, and I hope nobody will think me discourteous if I leave within two or three minutes. I have tried to give to the Postmaster-General a few ideas, on some of which I hope he will act.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis: The Postmaster-General in his opening remarks made it abundantly clear that he is vitally interested in and concerned with the question of television and broadcasting facilities. In these circumstances, it is very appropriate that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), should have addressed the House a few moments ago because there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that his speech can be brought within the category of entertainment, particularly in view of the arguments he advanced in regard to the abundance of telephones in Government Departments. If everyone were to adopt the methods employed by the hon. Member for Croydon, East, who, in order to get through to Southend, made five telephone calls and eventually got through to 10, Downing Street, he could not at any time claim that Government Departments should have any less telephones than they have at present. It is he and people like him who are probably responsible for the existence of more instruments than are really necessary in Government Departments.

Sir H. Williams: I should like to point out that I wanted to get through to South-sea and not Southend, and that I rang up two Government Departments because the first one was incompetent.

Mr. Lewis: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. The next argument he advanced concerning the availability of materials was remarkable in the sense that the hon. Gentleman himself is recognised as being, to some extent, an industrial expert. He is also actively connected with many companies. I think there has never been such a crushing indictment of private enterprise as that which has been delivered by the hon. Gentleman, who pointed out that all the necessary raw materials are freely available and that,

in fact, we only need intelligent mobilisation of the necessary resources to provide all the cables and instruments and equipment which are required, knowing, as he did when he made the statement, that the manufacture of these articles is in the hands of the cable combine and private enterprise in their entirety. That, I repeat, is a crushing indictment of private enterprise.

Sir H. Williams: I do not wish to be misquoted. I did not choose this subject. It was the Postmaster-General who said we were short of raw materials. I asked "What raw materials?" and he said "Tin and copper." I dealt with that point only.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman does not know enough about this side of the industry. When he talks of tin and copper, he should realise that it is not just a question of tin and copper. One has to draw wire and prepare cables. If the hon. Gentleman knew anything at all about the cable industry and the requirements of those other industries which make demands upon the cable manufacturers, he would know that a long time elapses before delivery is effected. There is a tremendeous demand for certain specialised types of cables.

Mr. Erroll: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I wish to point out that there is no shortage of telephone cables in this country at the moment. In fact, some of the telephone companies are having to work short time and dismiss staff.

Mr. Lewis: This argument about the dismissal of staff and working short time is precisely the same argument advanced by another hon. and gallant Gentleman who, in a Debate a few days ago, said that in the boot and shoe industry in Northampton short time is being worked. It is within my own knowledge that buses are being sent to bring people in to work in that area precisely because there is a shortage of labour. I do not accept the argument that all cable is in plentiful supply. Knowing a little bit about the industry, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are still priorities and that it is necessary to wait some time for deliveries, particularly for some of the more specialised requirements of the cable industry, and if there are still priorities then it is quite obvious that


there are shortages which cause delay, apart from delivery problems caused by the demands of the export market.
I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the television services, because I think I can say, with all humility, that in the last Parliament I raised the question of the development of the television services on more occasions than did any other hon. Member. I was always anxious to see some wide general scheme initiated, covering the whole country, which would enable people in parts of the British Isles, outside the London area to enjoy this essential service—a service which my right hon. Friend described as a vital contribution to our social life. I have always regarded television in precisely the same light, and to me it is perhaps the greatest entertainment and educative medium of the 20th century.
It is true that there are difficulties and I think we must face up to them. They do not lie in the initial development of these services because although we know that a certain amount of extension and the pace of the extension is hampered by shortage of the necessary finance, on the the other hand here is a scheme which will eventually in a few years' time cover the larger part of the country. The difficulties to which I refer are the difficulties of programme and the resistance which is being offered today by those people responsible for the promotion of sporting and entertainment activities to the television service as such. This is the difficult matter with which I think my right hon. Friend will find himself face to face before long.
As this service develops all over the country I feel that we shall have a greater demand for better and more popular programmes—programmes which are limited today not because those responsible for the television services do not want to provide them but because of resistance to television on the part of the entertainment industry as a whole. This resistance arises from the fear on their part that it will effect their gates and returns and I think it is reasonable to say at this stage that it would be unreasonable to regard their attitude as anti-social. After all, a man or a promoter runs a risk if he depends upon a "gate," whether he is running a variety show, a theatrical performance or

a boxing match. If he is asked whether he will agree to the television of the show then, he is reluctant to concur because he feels that if he agrees he will run the risk of people not attending the actual live show but staying at home in congenial circumstances round the fireplace and watching the spectacle on the television screen.
I think these people are wrong and that, in fact, it is a very short-sighted point of view, because it is precisely the same narrow point of view as that which was expressed by those responsible for this entertainment industry in the early days of sound broadcasting. I believe that through the medium of television they will be giving popularity to various kinds of sports and entertainments which previously the majority of people in the country were not interested because they had never bothered to see them until they were brought into their own homes by the television set.
The Postmaster-General said we had a great reputation as a sporting country. Perhaps I can give him an example of what I mean in so far as one sporting activity—boxing—is concerned. There we have a resistance on the part of the promoters to the televising of their large shows. I should make it quite clear that I am not speaking at the moment as a steward of the British Boxing Board of Control but giving my own personal point of view. I believe the promoters are wrong and I believe they are rendering boxing a great dis-service by not doing something now to ensure that a greater number of the people in the country have the opportunity of looking in at boxing. If they do give this opportunity now, I think in the long term it will improve their "gates."
There is a proposal which I will put to my right hon. Friend by which I think we can overcome the present difficulties, not necessarily by adopting a system which could in any way be regarded as commercial broadcasting but is I believe, a practical suggestion which might solve the problem. We have heard a lot about rediffusion and we know that the Postmaster-General is empowered to grant licences to people outside the B.B.C. for television purposes. If anyone else wants to televise or use any system of television, however, the B.B.C. is no longer concerned—and the person can only be


granted licence from my right hon. Friend, outside the charter of the B.B.C. I can foresee the possibility of large cinema or theatrical circuits coming to some arrangement with promoters to re-diffuse a particular spectacle into their theatres. They would enter into a commercial agreement with promoters and pay them for the right to rediffuse the show. The point which will immediately arise in the minds of hon. Members is: what is the Post Office to get out of it? For what consideration should my right hon. Friend agree to grant a licence in the circumstances I have outlined, to permit what is, after all, nothing else but a commercial agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller, if I may put it that way?

Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing: Could the hon. Gentleman say why the Post Office should get anything out of granting a licence? The Post Office has frequencies through the W.T.A. but surely if anyone wants to carry on a commercial link, such as the hon. Member suggests, there is no reason why the Post Office should expect to get something out of it.

Mr. Lewis: I was speaking on the assumption that the hon. Member was aware, as well as I am, that we have set our minds in this country against commercial broadcasting. I think it is a good thing that we have done so. No one would like to see us adopt the system which they have in America where a great opera singer is followed by an announcement that she appears by the courtesy of vile beans.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We were talking about television and the hon. Member has taken us back to broadcasting. The point I make is: why should the right hon. Gentleman get anything out of this?

Mr. Lewis: We are limited in this discussion. The B.B.C. operates under a charter and if my right hon. Friend is to grant a licence, quite obviously if there is advantage to be gained for the people as a whole as a result of granting that licence that should be considered. I was giving consideration to it when the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Charles On-Ewing) intervened. I believe that, as a consideration for agreeing to permit this commercial arrange-

ment as between the exhibitor and the producer, the Postmaster-General should insist on the national television service having the spectacle made available to it quite free of charge.
There is, of course, a difficulty about funds. If the Post Office could afford to pay the people who run the variety shows and could afford to pay the big boxing promoters, the Epsom grandstand people, those people responsible for the Grand National, or the Football Association, those large sums which they would regard as adequate to cover the risk they think they run, then this problem would not arise, but I think it is generally recognised on both sides of the House. that those large sums are not available in the coffers of the Post Office or the. B.B.C. I am simply throwing out this suggestion with a view to my right hon. Friend giving it consideration, and if my proposal were ever to be implemented, then many difficulties would have been overcome.
It might be possible, as a result of a commercial arrangement between one of the large film circuits and a big boxing promoter, that the circuit would agree to pay this promoter for the right to rediffuse in their cinemas. They would, of course, charge people for entering the cinemas. At the same time, in consideration of the licence being granted, the television service would have this spectacle brought into over a quarter of a million houses quite free of charge. I believe that if investigations were made on those lines they would not necessarily lead to a dead end. There is a possibility that something could be done with both sides, but I believe that this question of the programmes will become more and more important as time goes on and as it becomes increasingly important, so the shortage of funds will have a greater impact upon the content of the transmission as distinct from the technical factors.
My right hon. Friend has gone to the Post Office at a stage when television matters are likely to appear every day on his table. He is responsible in the main for its development and it presents a first-class opportunity for a Minister with imagination and some real conception of the potentialities of this great service—an opportunity to be able to do something practical to enable Britain


once again to lead the world in television. We did lead the world once, but we fell behind. I am not sure we have yet caught up. But knowing my right hon. Friend as I do, with all his knowledge of administration, and his Departmental experience, I am quite satisfied that if something is to be done, then he will be the man to do it, and I am sure he will have the support of every Member of the House in carrying out the important tasks with which he is confronted.

2.51 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) who has just addressed us referred to remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) in regard to supplies of raw materials such as copper and tin, to which the Postmaster-General referred in his interesting speech. I think there is some misunderstanding in the hon. Member's mind. The basic point as I see it is that these raw materials go into the manufacture of a very great quantity of equipment which is exported abroad—

Mr. J. Lewis: Yes.

Sir D. Robertson: —and that is really:the reason why those raw materials are in short supply for the production of telephones in this country.

Mr. J. Lewis: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken, because I took down the words the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) used. He said that what was required was "intelligent mobilisation of our resources" to give us what we require. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland for proving conclusively that the difficulty arises out of the necessity to export.

Sir D. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. However, the question is: Is the Postmaster-General satisfied that there is no excessive quantity of telephone equipment going overseas? I was told by one of the area managers recently 75 per cent. of vital telephone equipment for the expansion of exchanges which the Postmaster-General referred to as holding up so many telephones, is due to such a heavy proportion of telephone equipment going overseas.
I should like the Assistant Postmaster-General to tell the House frankly what proportion of vital telephone exchange equipment is being exported, because if it is 75 per cent. or anything like it we cannot afford to export on such a scale while our people are waiting years for telephones. I submit that this is not going to hard dollar countries at all. America is entirely capable, and so is Canada, of producing all the telephone equipment they require. It would be quite tragic if this material was sent to soft currency countries or as unrequited exports, when the lack of it here is stopping so much essential business. Farmers are crying out for telephones. They come before anyone else in Great Britain in regard to solving Britain's greatest problem, the feeding of 50 million people in these Islands. In my constituency, Caithness and Sutherland, we have farmers who are eminent agriculturists, some of whom are running three farms and who are making great contributions to the supply of the nation's food, several of them have been waiting three, four and five years for telephones, and that waiting will just not do.
Then those figures which the Postmaster-General gave of the number that are still awaiting telephones I submit include thousands of people in remote areas—I see that the Assistant Postmaster-General is shaking his head. I may be able to submit evidence to him that he is wrong because the Highland area—or rather the North of Scotland area which I think is called by the Post Office the Aberdeen Area—comprises almost half of all Scotland.
It is a wholly ridiculous situation. There are 44 telephone areas in England; there are five in Scotland; and there is one in Northern Ireland. Five in Scotland, and one area for almost half the country. We have the telephone office and the manager and nearly all the constructional staff tucked away in the south-east extremity of the city of Aberdeen. It is amazing how these Government Departments love to congregate in the great cities. We brought in a National Health Service because in the words of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) we were spending £300 million on preventable disease. Yet we huddle in the big cities where overcrowding is worse and is the main cause of disease.
I submit to the Postmaster-General that he should get out of Aberdeen as soon as he can and move nearer to the people his Department are supposed to serve. Has the House realised what this position means? Aberdeen is the fourth or fifth great city of Scotland and from that office there they have to cover the city and county of Aberdeen—a very large county, Banffshire, Cromarty, Nairnshire, Inverness-shire, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, the County of Orkney, the County of Shetland, and the Hebredian Island Lewes which is more than half of the Hebrides, and the Isle of Skye. It is a pitiful record, this waiting list of farmers, and manufacturers, traders and others—a waiting list in that area for telephones, waiting on a service that is concentrated in one place.

Mr. J. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the conditions of those farmers, but surely the first requirement on those farms is electrification as such. Surely, if electricity has to come from the same source whether for telephones or anything else, the first requirement is electrification because the farmers can manage without telephones, although electricity would be a help to their production.

Sir D. Robertson: Well, the hon. Gentleman has had his say. I am having mine. We are discussing telephones today, and that is what I am going to concentrate on. But these farmers need telephones, and it needs no great imagination to understand that they do. I do ask the Postmaster-General to pay attention to this problem. The great historic counties of Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty have no telephone department office or staff. There are little pockets of a few men under a foreman at Wick, Elgin and Inverness.
There is a 99 per cent. concentration of staff at Aberdeen. Consider the wastage it causes. Staff have to be sent all over the place from Aberdeen to serve a huge area. I know what has happened. It has been done by some planner on paper in a back room. The population has been added up and divided into 50 equal parts with a total disregard to area, whereas area must be taken into account. The constituency I have the honour to represent is the smallest in numbers in Britain, but it is one of the largest in area—a fact I shall never forget after

recent experiences. It should be divided into four. I do beg of the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what I say. He and I are old colleagues, and I wish him well in his appointment as Postmaster-General, but in all friendliness I shall make his life a complete misery if he does not attend to the neglected and forgotten counties of Caithness and Sutherland.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. Harry Wallace: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) will not, I am sure, expect me to comment on what he has said. He has asked a number of questions, which no doubt the Assistant Postmaster-General will answer. Nor can I join with him in saying that I intend to make my right hon. Friend's life a misery. There may be occasions when I can join him in criticising my right hon. Friend, but not on the points he has raised. I think a little more information about the organisation of the Post Office would remove many of the fears which trouble the hon. Gentleman.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Croydon, East, (Sir H. Williams) had to leave the Chamber shortly after making his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to difficulties in the Rossendale Valley, and suggested that more motor vehicles might be supplied. The answer of the hon. Member for Croydon, East was, "I see motor vehicles outside the South-Western District Office in London. Why not move some of those vehicles to Lancashire?" If the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to inquire about the volume of work handled at the South-Western District Office and the demand there for motor vehicles, he would not make such flippant remarks in a serious Debate in this House.
The hon. Member for Croydon, East, also cast some reflections on the present-day staff. He seemed to think that they lacked the zeal, energy and vigour of the staff of years ago. In referring to the men who work in the rural areas he again showed his complete ignorance of what he was talking about. If he knew anything about the standard of work of these men in the rural areas he would know that the same standard exists today as existed 40 years ago, if the man travels on his feet, or on bicycle, although the


introduction of the motor vehicle has meant a change.
The hon. Member for Croydon, East, referred to copper, and although I am no expert and know nothing about the supply of raw materials, I should like the Assistant Postmaster-General to indicate whether the difficulty in obtaining all the supplies we want might be due to the high prices demanded by the suppliers. After the 1914–18 War there was difficulty because of the high prices demanded at home, when the same materials could be secured from Germany at a very much lower price. Whether or not that was due to the manipulation of a price ring I do not know. I should be glad if the Assistant Postmaster-General could throw any light on prices. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) asked a number of questions which I do not propose to go over again, and I should like to hear the answers to them.
We are today debating a request for £75 million, and I agree with the request. However, as has been pointed out, about £69½ million is to go to the telephone service. I do not know how much is to be spent on the provision of television, a development which I welcome, but I should like to have some idea of what is to be spent on Post Office buildings. I mention this because I remember that after the 1914–18 War the Post Office had excellent plans for providing new buildings, with excellent opportunities for securing sites but by the time the Treasury and the Office of Works—now I suppose the Ministry of Works—had gone over the proposals the opportunity was lost, and the sites were not secured; and I venture to say that subsequently the Post Office had to pay over £1 million to £2 million more for sites which they might have acquired earlier if the Postmaster-General had had more freedom.
I do not say take away Treasury control altogether. What I ask for is greater freedom for the Postmaster-General so that he may be able to take the initiative. As a result of that post-war delay there were demands for new exchanges, and new headquarter buildings, but they were not met. Then came the depression of 1930, and instead of the Government of the day encouraging the investment of money in the provision of new telephone exchanges, new buildings and new equip-

ment for the Post Office, the demand was for cuts: "Cut wages; cut expenditure; add to the unemployment." I am not so sure that the party opposite would not repeat that demand again if we had a similar depression coming upon us.
As a result of those experiences—the 1914–18 War, the depression of 1930 and the coming of war in 1939—today there are buildings which are completely out-of-date. New buildings ought to have been erected in their place long ago, and I ask whether the Assistant Postmaster-General can, when replying to the Debate, give an indication of the programme for erecting new buildings or extending existing buildings, and above all for providing telephone exchanges which would not be out-of-date before the development to which the Postmaster-General has referred takes place.
I want to add to those of other hon. Members my good wishes to the Postmaster-General. He comes from an industry which has recently been nationalised and I am sure that he will take with him something of value to the Post Office, as did one of his predecessors, the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn. My right hon. Friend will also gain from the Post Office experience which will be valuable in his own industry, that of coal. I am glad to learn of his happy experience with the work of the Joint Production Committee, which is a tribute, not only to the staff, but also to nationalisation which has developed a spirit of service.
In the rank and file and in all concerned there has developed so deep a sense of responsibility and loyalty to the service that the staff seek opportunities to give of their experience and ideas. Under the Whitley Committee, which was introduced after the 1914–18 war, I saw a great development in that sense of responsibility and loyalty. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make full use of these qualities of those in the service. He has an opportunity of showing how the goodwill of labour can be secured, and if he achieves that he will have made one of the greatest contributions to the efficiency of nationalised industries that any one man can make.
The question of profit has been referred to. I do not ask that the Post Office makes a profit, but that it gives a good service. It is all very well for people


to jibe at the 2½d. letter post. That was introduced to obtain revenue; it is not the fault of the Post Office. I have never yet heard the party opposite challenge a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who raised the price for Revenue purposes. I shall be interested to see if hon. Gentlemen opposite do so in the present situation. Since the introduction of the 2½d. post, however, other prices and wages have risen and this rate is not out of tune with the present-day level of prices.
In this as in a good many other industries, there are loyal workers who still are not getting what is necessary today for a reasonable minimum standard of life—for example, in this city of London. This is pressing hard, and if my right hon. Friend can show the same regard for development in connection with the wages structure as for the development of telephone exchanges and so forth, I shall be very happy. I know from my long experience that had the wages structure been dealt with in this way 20 years ago, some of the great grievances would have been remedied. Amongst these, for example, are the questions of equal pay, of long scales and of asking men and women to wait until they are nearly 30 years of age before they get their maximum.
I do not ask my right hon. Friend to introduce all these reforms immediately. I know his difficulties; there are many inherent in the Post Office and in the Civil Service, and other difficulties we all experience. I hope that in the development of the service my right hon. Friend will not forget the long-term development of a rational wages structure, the need for which he knows from bitter experience.

3.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Hon. Members who have had the opportunity of sitting throughout the Debate must have been impressed by the many unexpected and interesting courses which it has taken. We have ranged from climatic conditions in the Rossendale Valley to equal pay for equal work; we have spent a moment or two in the boxing ring, and the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis), doubtless realising that flat racing has recommenced, ended in the grandstand

on Epsom Downs. But this is a money Bill, and I hope I shall not be thought discourteous if I offer the House a few observations upon the Measure now before us.
I begin by offering my felicitations to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General on succeeding to the command of our senior and most venerable nationalised industry. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman displayed in his speech a remarkable grasp of his Department when, as he reminded us, he has only been there for some 14 days. That shows commendable assiduity and a wise application to his duties. Energy will be required from him, his hold is precarious and his time is short. He will have to work quickly to achieve the results he outlined to the House.
This Bill exemplifies in a graphic manner the system of Treasury accountancy about which this House, and certainly the public, have too little intelligence. I found myself in agreement with the observations of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who expressed the view that there should be a greater control by the Postmaster-General over his own finances. There is a moral in this. After all, there are more industries coming into the sphere of nationalisation. If all their finances are to be engulfed by the Treasury and allocated on broad lines which do not pay attention to certain detailed requirements, that is something of which the House should take notice. Indeed, it would be valuable if one day in this Parliament we were able to debate on the widest front the Treasury system of accountancy as regards nationalised industries.
The fate of the right hon. Gentleman may well be the fate of others, and before long. He has produced what many of us regard as a fictitious surplus in the last financial year of £17 million. Of course, it is simple, by selling penny stamps for 2½d. to achieve a profit, which is the transaction that takes place over the post office counters. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. H. Wallace) told us that this was imposed by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the war-time Budget of 1940. It is quite true. The present Lord Simon, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, increased


postage from 1½d. to 2½d., making it clear, at that time, as do all Chancellors of all parties, that it was a merely temporary measure.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Penny stamps are still sold for a penny and can be bought in the post office today.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) was unable to follow the irony of my argument. As a matter of fact, the stamps which the hon. Member purchases for a penny are ½d. stamps—but let us leave these mathematical niceties for another time.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman what arrangements are envisaged for interest and sinking fund arrangements on these very large sums which we are asked to approve today. They amount to a very considerable figure, spread over a period of time as far as expenditure is concerned, and we would like to know more about the service of these capital sums. The right hon. Gentleman told us that of this amount £69,500,000 is required for the telephone service, and he was at pains to explain what is going on in that direction and the problems which confront him. He told us of the waiting list which bears so heavily on him and which he ascribed to Sir Kingsley Wood who could hardly have foreseen what would be happening in 1950. The right hon. Gentleman even prided himself on the fact that he had a long waiting list and pointed out that because of the economic prosperity of the country so many people were applying for telephones with which the nationalised industry is unable to supply them. If he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that that is the effect of what he said.
There is a reason for that waiting list which has nothing to do with the economic prosperity of the country. Before leaving the question of telephones, may I point out that in the City of Bristol there is a grievous waiting list, not only for residential purposes, but also for business purposes. I sent the right hon. Gentleman a case only last week and I have no doubt it is being attended to. It shows the sort of problem with which we are faced. The right hon. Gentleman put it very well in a written reply to a

Question a week ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing). He said:
In view of the severe restriction of capital investment it is necessary, when providing new plant, to give preference to industrial and business areas, and I much regret the resultant delay in meeting the needs of some residential areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 15.]
But the problem is also acute in the business and industrial sphere and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to impress the House that it is not so.
I am glad to hear from him that he is investigating the possibility of easing the position caused by the use of party lines. He said that the position is being examined in order to ensure greater privacy for those speaking on the telephone, but that is only being done now, in the year 1950. What were his two predecessors, two Socialist Postmasters-General, in the last Parliament doing about it? Party lines have been a problem ever since the Government took office. They are now stimulated by the narrowness of their majority and urged on by the Chief Patronage Secretary, who has an interest in party lines, to tackle the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken, in my view, if he believes that the long waiting list for telephones is in any way an indication of the prosperity of the country. It is due to something else. I notice that £5,500,000, and only £5,500,000, of this capital sum is required for posts and telegraphs. We have heard something about the postal service today. In my opinion the increased demand for telephones is directly due to the curtailment of the postal services of this country. People in London receive their last delivery of the day at 3.30 in the afternoon. I live in Hampstead, a residential area, and I am very lucky if I get my morning delivery by 10 o'clock. Very often it is half-past 10 before it comes, although I am well aware that all the walks are supposed to be completed by 10 o'clock. In my view this curtailment has increased the demand for telephones to enable people to communicate with one another.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, because he was not in his present office then—he was in another—that the reduction in collection and delivery facilities was announced as being directly due to


the incidence of the fuel crisis of 1947? Later deliveries and collections had been restored by Lord Listowel, who I think holds no office today, when he was Postmaster-General. As I say, they were struck off at the time of the fuel crisis. That has now passed. It was three years ago. Would not the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter again? If only the late collections could be restored, it would have a most valuable effect.
It would be a great advantage, as I said at the outset of my remarks, if we could have a simplified picture presented to the House and the public of this problem of Post Office accountancy. It is astonishingly difficult to follow either in the Bill or in this publication of the commercial accounts. It requires to be put over to the public in simple language. Here I offer my congratulations to the Assistant Postmaster-General, with whom I have at least this in common: at the recent election both of us were transplanted from one part of the country to another and have survived and appear to be taking root. He and I had a controversy in the last House, and I am delighted to find that my repeated representations in the last Parliament have at last borne fruit. There is now a new public relations officer appointed from the established service. We now have the right boy for the job instead of the job for the wrong boy.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not think it would serve any useful purpose if I were to attempt to reply to what has been said, or to make a debating speech. But I do disagree altogether with the comments about the postal service, which I regard as exceedingly good. I get my post at 8 a.m. and I really do not agree that it is necessary for people to work very late in order that letters posted after 6 p.m. should reach Croydon the next day. If they are of the type which the hon. Member sent to me when he was out of a job before he returned to this House, it would not matter if they took a week or a fortnight.
I wish to raise one or two matters of importance, the first in regard to broadcasting. We all welcome the new Postmaster-General, and we are all grateful for the wide terms in which he made his speech, which has permitted us to raise matters which many of us have been

wishing to raise. I wish the Postmaster-General seriously to consider and to discuss with the broadcasting authorities the question of broadcasting the proceedings of this House—[An HON. MEMBER.: "No."] I do not know but it may be that the hon. Member who greets that observation with some surprise would not speak so often if his speeches were always radiated on the broadcast. When I was in Australia such a programme was exceedingly popular there.
No one would suggest that an existing programme should be replaced but that there should be a station available to broadcast at set times the proceedings of this House. At this moment it would be exceedingly popular. Indeed, I cart imagine nothing more popular among listeners than to hear the speeches of the Liberal Party and then have bets on the way that they will vote. It is an important question and I ask the Postmaster-General seriously to discuss it. I appreciate that I am raising matters which are not only matters for the Postmaster-General and the B.B.C. but matters for this House and the authorities of this House. I apologise if I have put my point briefly because there is only a brief time available to me.
The second matter is the question of telephones. I did not understand my right hon. Friend's figures, and I still do not; I ask him to look at them, as I feel there is some mistake somewhere. The profit shown in the figures for the telephone service is not £17 million but £8 million because over £8 million is allocated to paying off loan and interest charges. And so there is £8 million. I really cannot see how we can spend £300 million on telephones with a revenue of only £8 million, with outstanding applications amounting to 465,000, of which nearly 300,000 are residential subscribers with a probable potential income of £12 to £15 a year each, and have a hope of justifying those figures. The total depreciated capital value of the telephone service is only about £215 million gross. I think there must be something wrong with those figures.
May I make one humble plea to the Postmaster-General and make one little suggestion to him? We all have certain business activities which we have to run. and somehow or other they have to be dealt with. I should have thought that


if he receives an application for a telephone from a constituent of mine in Oldham it is placed on a file, and that somebody should know the answer. Therefore, I suggest that if I write to the right hon. Gentleman on Monday and he gets the letter on Tuesday, he should have written to Oldham that day and a reply should be sent to him by Wednesday, and I should have received a reply on Friday and my constituent should know on Saturday all about the trouble in the first instance before I start on the second line of attack. That would speed up the matter a little. I do not see why it should not be done in the Post Office service, which ought to have the necessary efficiency available.
My right hon. Friend's predecessor was a little coy about a matter of some importance. What is the priority for allocating telephones? As I understand it, and I have never got it clearly, a bookmaker who stopped at home during the war and applied in 1942 is well at the top of the list, while a man commanding a unit in Burma in 1942 who was demobilised in 1946 and who wants a single telephone for his business is right at the bottom.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I can assure my hon. Friend that the ex-Service man does get preference.

Mr. Hale: The case I put up to my right hon. Friend was the case of my own partner, who was a colonel in India during the war and who came back here and could not get a telephone. He bought a house by public auction with a telephone in it, and had the thing pulled out within a week. He bought another house by auction with a telephone in and had to barricade himself inside the house and refuse to allow the Post Office engineers in to remove the telephone. That is the case I have in mind and I do not consider it an unreasonable case to put.
When the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) was talking about the difficulties of getting through on the automatic telephone, an hon. Member on this side of the House interjected, "Rubbish." If the hon. Member had made that interjection at any other moment of his speech I would not have disagreed at all, but that was the moment

when I was in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Croydon, East. I have the greatest difficulty in getting through on the automatic telephone. All I want to know is what happens when I dial Cunningham 6100 and get Holborn 3516 and somebody answers—do I pay for the call?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]—I gather that I do. I would like to know also when I dial from a manual exchange and ask for a number on an automatic exchange and am put through and I get a steady series of buzzes which I ultimately adduce as, "No reply," do I pay for that call, too?
I wish to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. H. Wallace) and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) about the question of Post Office wages. I have a hunch that one of the really hardest cases which still survives—I know the right hon. Gentleman is giving it attention and doing very well—is the case of the mixed business where the postmistress also runs a grocer's shop, and where there is nobody to sit up all night; and where she is often fetched out of bed at three o'clock in the morning because somebody wishes to ring up and say that, rather to his surprise, he has got the car in the garage and is now going to bed. From what I remember of the old terms they were pretty niggardly terms. Really, the Post Office is a good employer and it has some good servants, but the wages of some need early attention. I am grateful for having been allowed to take part in this Debate, and in view of the late hour I will not put the other point which I wished to put.

3.30 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I shall try to confine myself to those matters with which we are most strictly concerned. I shall not even deal at length with the abominable delays in the parcel post to Northern Ireland, which are becoming worse and worse. I will deal with the telephone service first. I wish to repeat a point which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson).
I know the difficulties which face the right hon. Gentleman about supplying extra telephones to people who have applied. I understand the greatest difficulty he has


is in the supply of exchange equipment. That equipment is one of our earners of dollar currency. Whether it earns quite as many dollars as it is said to earn, I am not sure. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he is not really doing more harm by this long delay in the supply of telephones to business firms and farmers than the good which is done by selling the equipment for dollars. I know that the provision of telephone poles presents difficulty, but the supply of telephones to farmers and business firms would perhaps outweigh the advantage which we get from the comparatively small amount of foreign exchange which we secure from the export of telephone exchange equipment.
I thought that the Postmaster-General spoke rather disparagingly of the non-business telephone user. The housewife is one of the hardest worked people in the country. She can get practically no domestic help and the telephone lightens her burden to some extent. The need of the housewife for a telephone is urgent.
Now I am able to say something rather nice and friendly. That is something I always try to do, but with this Government it is difficult to get an opening. The courtesy of the telephone operators with whom one speaks is a marked feature of the British telephone service. It is far better than it was shortly after the war. There has been a marked increase in the courtesy and zeal with which the operator tries to help the subscriber. The time during which one has to hear the bell tolling before one gets an answer from tolls or trunks is sometimes considerable, but the courtesy is remarkable.
I was pleased that the Postmaster-General did not entirely condemn the telegram, because I know how unpopular the telegram is at the Post Office. It is not a highly remunerative service. It might be made more remunerative if the greetings telegram were reintroduced. The Post Office charged an unconscionable sum for a gold envelope—far more that it cost. However, the telegram is a vital necessity for those who cannot afford a telephone. I do not refer to the men who cannot get telephones, who are numerous, but those who cannot in any circumstances afford one. I am glad that that service is not entirely despised.
On the question of the installation of more exchange equipment, I ask the right

hon. Gentleman to consider the needs of my own constituency, Londonderry, and also of Belfast. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) raised that matter during Question time this week. We have a lower telephone density in both those cities than in many comparable cities. The difficulty is presented by the installation of telephone equipment. In Belfast they have the added difficulty in the curious antics of the telephones generally, which refuse to give the ringing tone. I may say that if the Assistant Postmaster-General does not give the ringing tone to my Questions when he comes to reply, I shall press button B.
From this comparatively peaceful opening I want now to pass to television. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor mentioned that eventually we should have in Northern Ireland a television installation. As far as I could understand, it will be a most inefficient installation which will deal only with Belfast and the suburbs and will not reach the further portions of Northern Ireland, and particularly not my constituency. I think it would be perfectly futile to instal such a contrivance; we want to cover the whole country.
There was a certain air of satisfaction about the Minister's announcement that 70 per cent. of the people of Great Britain were going to have television, but apparently nobody whatsoever outside Great Britain and in the other portion of the United Kingdom is to have it. That, I think, is a most unfortunate announcement. Why should we come last, because, if we consider who needs-television most, is it the man who lives, in a thickly-populated district and who, can go down the street to the picture palace, or is it the man in the more scattered areas where there is no chance of entertainment and where, if he had a television set, he would be likely to bring in the neighbours to see the show? I suggest that it is in the latter areas that we want most to have television.
I am not making any point as regards priority in capital expenditure on television generally. I would hesitate to say, charming, useful and pleasant amenity as it is, that we could put it very high among the things essential to us in a time of stress, but I do say that in the case of priority as between differ-


ent areas, to concentrate entirely, as is being done at present, upon the thickly-populated areas, in which there is more choice of amusement and diversion than anywhere else in the country, is a mistake. When I am at home and want to go to the "pictures," to use the phrase, I have to go 14 miles to get there, and there is no public transport, except, I think, once a day.
I submit that it is most unfair that the concentration should be so much on areas where there is almost a superfluity of possibilities of entertainment. I should like everyone to have television if it can be afforded, but I think that in Northern Ireland in particular, where we earn two dollars per head for every one earned per head in Great Britain, where we provide enormous quantities of food, all the eggs that used to be used in London for the egg ration—and we have a rationing system imposed upon us although we produce enough food to feed ourselves—it is wrong that we should come last in the priorities of the Labour Government. It is a thing which I, for one, will protest against as long as I have the honour to represent my constituency in this House.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I so often agree with the observations on non-partisan lines of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) that I must confess I was a little horrified at the suggestion he made of urging upon the Government the desirability of broadcasting the proceedings of this House. I feel that such a proposal would do infinite harm to this House. It would subject it to a process for which it is not intended, it would do serious damage to the intimacies of 'Debate, and it would, I believe, be thoroughly harmful in its effect. I am only consoled by the reflection that even if the Government were persuaded by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, there are, as always in matters affecting this House, many other authorities to be consulted. Undoubtedly there would be yourself, Sir. No doubt the Serjeant at Arms would come in, and I am perfectly certain that the Lord Great Chamberlain would be involved, and the Minister of Works. I am certain there are many substantial barriers to such a proposal.

Sir H. Williams: And the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the case of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, I feel that the maxim de minimis non curat lex applies. What the hon. Gentleman has failed to appreciate in putting that forward is this consideration. You, Sir, must have come to the conclusion, sitting in that Chair for long hours as you do, that certain speeches in this House are delivered perhaps more with a view to reproduction in the local newspaper than to persuade the Government to take some action. Obviously the temptation to deliver speeches of that sort would be very much greater, at any rate during the hours when the microphone was turned on, and I hope, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West, he will not press the matter.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the argument he puts forward merely indicates a complete lack of belief in democracy and in the judgment of his fellow citizens outside this House?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not. The hon. Gentleman is sufficient of a historian to know that it is only within the last 200 years that this House permitted even the reporting of its Debates. I think that was because it was considered that the effect of excessive publicity must be harmful to our proceedings. Far from reflecting upon the judgment of our fellow citizens, it must surely strike the hon. Gentleman that if certain hours of this House are broadcast and certain hours are not, our fellow citizens will not get a fair picture of our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is in complete error if he thinks there are any of our fellow citizens who would listen to all our proceedings. If there were, they would set an example to every Member of this House.
The Postmaster-General began a very agreeable speech with a reference to natural Welsh modesty, a quality which, I suppose, comes to its finest flowering in the person of the Minister of Health. That quality did not prevent the Postmaster-General from becoming lyrical in his enthusiasm for the Department over which he has presided for only a few days. Possibly, as the months pass, that


enthusiasm may subside. In any event, any right hon. Gentleman who played a part for three years in defending the Control of Engagement Order must be capable of rousing enthusiasm very easily. In parenthesis I may remark that that Order only survived the departure of the right hon. Gentleman from the Ministry of Labour by one week. The right hon. Gentleman showed enthusiastic support of his Department as a socialised industry. The adjective is one which one finds more often used by the Lord President of the Council.
The basis of his enthusiasm was that this socialised industry had made a profit. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has cast a little doubt upon that profit. Even accepting that the Postmaster-General is right and my hon. Friend is wrong—a most unlikely state of affairs—let us follow up what it is the right hon. Gentleman is trying to say. He is telling this House of Commons that this socialised industry which makes a profit is the one about which Questions can be asked across the Floor of the House. If he really thinks there is any weight in his enthusiasm for this socialised industry above all others, he will persuade some of his colleagues that it might be salutary for them to answer a few questions occasionally.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if there is a monopoly in an essential service, if prices are raised and the service is diminished to an almost unlimited extent, it is not really difficult to make a profit. Some people would describe that process as exploitation, and others might well take the view that the Post Office is being used—in my view quite improperly—as an instrument of taxation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not rouse too much enthusiasm in his own breast for the profit-making capacity of the Post Office, but will apply a little of that enthusiasm to the much more important task of rendering good service to the public. The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that the Post Office is not rendering anything like the service which for lesser charges it rendered to the public before the war.
Let me refer to the question which was raised by one of my Friends about times of collection and delivery. My hon.

Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) said that if he posted a letter in London after six o'clock it would be unlikely to reach his constituency until late the following day. My hon. Friend should be thankful for small mercies. There is a part of my constituency, which I have already drawn to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the Kingston Hill district, in which there are only two deliveries which, for some ingenious reason, are timed for half-past nine in the morning and eleven o'clock. If I write a letter in London, in this building, to a constituent in that part of my division at any time after six o'clock, it does not reach that person until the morning of the second day after I wrote it. That is to say, to cover a distance of 101 miles, approximately 38 hours are involved. The right hon. Gentleman can work out the velocity with which the missive proceeds.
I want to join with my hon. Friends in pressing the right hon. Gentleman much further, particularly on this issue of the later collections. I think I am right in saying that this city is the only great capital city in the world which does not have a system of late collections of mail. In a great capital city there are many people whose work, often of importance to the public, inevitably takes place in the later hours of the day. It was to cope with that need that before the war there was a very fine system of late collections. As one of my hon. Friends reminded the House, they were restored during the term of office of one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors. They were dropped during what I believe is now colloquially known as the "Shinwell blackout," and have never been restored. Why have they not been restored?
I should be grateful if, when the Assistant Postmaster-General replies to this Debate, on whatever occasion that may be, he will tell us quite clearly why that service—in my view essential, at least in a great capital city—has not been restored. I would ask him to deal bluntly with this question. Is the failure to restore it due to the attitude of the Union of Post Office Workers? We are entitled to be told that. I am not necessarily criticising the Union if the answer to that question is Yes. What I do say is this. If that decision is due to the


representations of that union this House should at least know that. These representations, if they are made, should be made openly so that they can either be attacked or defended.
It calls for some explanation when an important service is restored 2½ years after the end of the war and then suddenly brought to a standstill and never restarted again. It is our duty to our constituents—particularly those of us who represent constituencies in the London Area—to know the reasons why this service has not been restored. In any event, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he prides himself on the profits which he has made, to recall that in that respect, apart from any others, a much inferior service is being given to the public, although more is being charged for it.
I hope this Bill indicates that something is to be done to improve the lamentable telephone situation. The Postmaster-General used a very ingenious argument. It was, no doubt by mere coincidence that it is the same argument which the Minister of Health used in another context—the interesting argument that the length of the waiting list for telephones was an indication of national prosperity. The Minister of Health said that the size of the waiting list for houses was due to the same cause. I must ask the Postmaster-General to think that out a little further because what he is really saying is this: that there has been created a large amount of purchasing power which cannot be satisfied, that real wealth such as telephones or houses is not available, and that all that is available is a large amount of paper money. The name for that kind of prosperity is inflation and I think the right hon. Gentleman is very ill-advised, in his capacity as a member of the Government, to seek to excuse the long waiting list of his Department by an argument of that sort.
It is not only the length of the waiting list, however; it is also the question of the length of time some people on it have been waiting. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of this week about two constituents of mine who have been waiting for the installation of a telephone for slightly more than nine years. Their applications were submitted in the early part of the year 1941. They have

not yet received either a telephone or even an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that any telephone will ever be installed in their premises. Their addresses have been furnished to the right hon. Gentleman.
I see the right hon. Gentleman consulting my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston), but even though he seeks the assistance of one with more experience of the Post Office than he has himself—and I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman wants every help he can obtain in this matter—it is not good enough that anybody should have to wait for nine years for the installation of the telephone. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman pointing to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, for nobody suggests that during the four years of war, from 1941 to 1945, the installation of civilian telephones could have a very high priority. But five years have passed since the war ended and, surely when a start was made with the installation of telephones the very fact that these two individuals had been waiting for four years should have meant that they got a telephone fairly soon after the resumption of civilian installations.
The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate the full wrongness of a delay of this sort. He is in charge of a great monopoly. If he fails to supply these people with a telephone they cannot go to somebody else, and the fact that he has a monopoly of the installation of telephones imposes upon him, it seems to me, a responsibility for meeting public demand. If he had not a monoply, if he were simply an ordinary trading concern, a possible consumer could go to somebody else. In this instance they can go only to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not even pretend that it is satisfactory that people in this country should be compelled to wait nine years for the installation of a telephone. I understand that in this case, in the borough of Surbiton, technical difficulties have been raised because the houses in question happen to be on the boundary of some exchange area. But while that may be an argument for a delay of nine months, it is not even like the beginning of an argument for a delay of nine years.
As the head of a great monopoly, the Minister has a duty to apply his mind


and efforts to dealing with this sort of case and dealing with it extremely quickly. He knows perfectly well that the telephone service generally is far from giving satisfaction. I will not adopt as part of my argument, but I will recall to the House, the comments to a close relative of mine by a telephone supervisor of one of the West London exchanges to whom she had applied for assistance after an otherwise fruitless attempt to get a number. The supervisor was courteous—in my experience they always are—and finally informed my informant that no doubt the trouble was due to the machinery, adding the comment, "It ought to be blown up." I would not adopt that as part of my argument, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of machinery which, five years after the war, is in an inexcusably bad condition. His predecessor a few years ago could be forgiven much but the amount of forgiveness to which the right hon. Gentleman is entitled must inevitably diminish as the years pass.
I want to make two comments on what the right hon. Gentleman said about the shared service. There are several important aspects of that matter. The right hon. Gentleman, very properly, appealed to ordinary individuals to co-operate by agreeing to share their lines with those who otherwise would not get one, but I think I am right in saying—if I am not I shall, no doubt, be corrected in due course—that very little financial inducement is given to subscribers to share a line. I believe the charge to a subscriber is reduced by a very small amount indeed if he consents to share a line. Therefore, while the Post Office gets the profit of having two subscribers, the person who suffers the inconvenience of having only half a telephone gets very little compensation. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to have a greater number of people prepared to share telephone lines he must be prepared to offer them a greater degree of inducement.
Finally on that point let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman. It arises to some extent out of what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) said. I found it very difficult to understand on what system the right hon. Gentleman's Department proceeds both in the priorities as to actual installation,

and in deciding whether people can have a private line or must be compelled to share. For example, it has come to my attention that two ministers of religion in my constituency have been told that they must take a shared line or do without. Now, it is obviously inappropriate that a minister of religion, who will obviously have to discuss the most intimate and private matters with people in his parish, should be put in the position of sharing a line. It so happens that these two reverend gentlemen belong to different aspects of our Christian community, but they are unanimous in the view that it would be inappropriate and quite wrong for them to be called upon to discuss these matters over shared telephone lines. If the right hon. Gentleman can get his device which will ensure privacy, all well and good, but in the present circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman referred he should give much greater attention to the needs of people such as ministers of religion.
The right hon. Gentleman, I think, will be satisfied after all that has been said in the Debate that the Post Office, which he is taking over, while it may or may not be the excellent profit making concern to which he refers, is one which is not giving yet to the public the service which it should be giving. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take up his heavy responsibilities with that consideration fully in mind. The need is much more to give the ordinary public the ordinary basic postal services—proper deliveries and collections with sufficient frequency, particularly in areas where a great deal of business is done—and the installation of the ordinary telephone services that the ordinary subscribers require. It is a little tempting to a Department which seems to like publicity to introduce some new stunt service and yet not deal with the basic needs of ordinary people.
It is in that connection that there is a story told in London of a London business man who, desiring to communicate with his home in outer London to say that he would be delayed at his office and would not be able to get home for dinner at the normal time, and having failed to get through in half an hour, put through a call to the "Queen Elizabeth" in mid-Atlantic, with which he was connected in a few minutes, to ask the captain, who was a friend of his, to ring up his wife at his home in Surrey


to give her the message that he would not be home for dinner.
Although that is, no doubt, something of a parody of what is occurring, there is a little truth behind it in that there is a tendency to emphasise the wonders of science, to emphasise what can be done, and a tendency to pay less attention to the hard, important work of providing the ordinary postal services to the people of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman will apply his undoubted energies to meeting that need, then many of us in this House, though we may continue to dislike his politics, will regard him as a great administrator.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I was interested to see the enthusiasm that the new Postmaster-General displayed for his august office, and I hope that that enthusiasm will persist during the months ahead, and that we shall see a rapid improvement in the transmission of letters. I feel that if only we could get more rapid transmission of letters we should indeed reduce the demand for telephone facilities. It is altogether wrong to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the increased demand for telephones is just a symptom of better economy—

It being Four o'Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ESTIMATES

Select Committee appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein:

Committee to consist of Thirty-Six Members: Mr. Albu, Mr. Arthur Allen, Mr. Heathcoat Amory, Mr. Alexander Anderson, Mr. Awbery, Mr. Nigel Birch, Mr. Champion, Wing Commander Geoffrey Cooper, Viscountess Davidson, Sir Ralph Glyn, Mr. Gunter, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Wing Commander

Hulbert, Mr. John Lewis, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Low, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Major Niall Macpherson, Mr. Manningham-Buller, Mrs. Middleton, Mr. Hapkin Morris, Mr. Thomas Reid, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Sydney Silverman, Mr. Norman Smith, Mr. Snow, Mr. Spearman, Mr. Summers, Mr. Turton, Miss Ward, Captain Waterhouse, Mr. William Wells, Mr. West, Mr. Frederick Willey, Mr. Yates and Mr. York:

Seven to be the Quorum:

Power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:

Power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:

Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to adjourn from place to place:

Power to report from time to time Minutes of Evidence taken before SubCommittees.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS

Select Committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally:

Mr. Driberg, Mr. John Foster, Mr. Holman, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Messer, Mr. Nally, Mr. Storey, Dr. Barnett Stross, Colonel Thornton-Kemsley, Mrs. Eirene White and Mr. Gerald Williams to be Members of the Committee:

Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to report from time to time:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Select Committee appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Private Bill Office, such Committee to classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and to report the same from time to time to the House; Reports of the Committee to set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; such Committee to have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:

Mr. Daggar, Mr. de Chair, Mr. Erroll, Mr. Grey, Mr. Hubbard, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. James Johnson, Dr. King, Lieut. - Colonel Lambert, Colonel Lancaster, Major Legge-Bourke, Mr. McGhee, Mr. John Morrison, Mr. Raikes and Mr. Viant to be Members of the Committee:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS

Lords Message [14th March] communicating the Resolution, "That it is desirable that in the present Session all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved:
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

THERAPEUTIC SOCIAL CLUBS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Snow: Before starting my remarks this afternoon on the subject of therapeutic social clubs, I should perhaps inform the House that I am a member of the governing body of the society which organises these clubs, though I have no financial interest about which to inform the House. It is essential for a layman who raises in this House the question of mental ill-health and mental illness generally to be most cautious not to give any false implication which depends on scientific knowledge, but to be careful that if he quotes medical opinion it should be a quotation and not a representation of his own opinion.
What I wish to do this afternoon is to seek the Minister's encouragement for the promotion of more therapeutic social clubs. These clubs are at the present moment located predominantly in. the Metropolitan area. It might interest the House to know the history of these clubs so that hon. Members can form their own opinion as to their value. Shortly before the war a small group of psychiatrists came to the conclusion that purely institutional treatment for mental ill-health was not the complete answer. In any remarks that I may now make, I wish it to be fully understood that I cast no criticism at all on the mental hospitals and their staffs, because their great work is fully recognised, and the devotion of the people who work in these great hospitals is something which we all appreciate.
The conclusion that these psychiatrists came to before the war was based on many factors; factors such as, for instance, the difficulties about the segregation of sexes in hospitals, and the difficulties with which they were confronted when they came across so many people suffering from such symptoms as excessive shyness. They concluded that if they could provide a method of social intercourse through, for instance, a club, a method which would involve imposing self-responsibility upon mental patients, it might provide an answer. This was the origin of the so-called in-patient club. Perhaps I may put it another way. There


was an instinctive feeling by some of these psychiatrists that, in spite of the most modern equipment, in spite of great improvements in accommodation and the demonstrable sympathy of the staffs in question, something was lacking in the science of understanding the psychology of a psychotic patient.
I think it is true to describe the evolution of mental treatment in this country in three periods. There was the punitive period of treatment, of evil memory, when lunatics were whipped in front of the public gaze in London. Then there followed the more enlightened scientific period, which one can describe as the philanthropic period, where the patient is the object of treatment. Now we have come, some of us think, to a period which I can describe as the participatory period, where the patient is the subject of treatment. It is this principle, where the patient can participate in treatment, that, we think, is assisted by enabling the patient to have a greater sense of responsibility. These clubs produce that instrument where the activity of the club is organised by the patients themselves; they become, in fact, partners in the operation of treatment.
Shortly after that in-patient type of club was started just before the war, the same people who had originated the club came to the conclusion that an outpatient club might be something better. At present there are a number of these clubs operating outside the precincts of the hospitals. I should like at this point to pay a great tribute to the London County Council, without whose aid little could have been done in this post-war period, and by whose aid these clubs now operate. We feel that the time has now come to try to get the idea of these clubs better known, so that they can be set up in Scotland and Wales and in provincial areas.
The underlying principles of the clubs can be conveniently considered under the two principles of prevention and cure. In the former, it is believed that many patients avoid, by their membership of the club, in-patient treatment; furthermore, that it prevents or obviates the necessity for periodic treatment and sometimes prevents relapses taking place. The observation by a psychiatrist at regular intervals in a social setting does,

we believe, cast an entirely new viewpoint upon this whole question.
On the subject of cure—and at this point I must quote medical opinion, although, for obvious reasons, I cannot give names—we think that the use of these clubs justifies the Minister's very careful attention. A very eminent psychiatrist, holding the most important senior appointment in his branch in a London teaching hospital, has said to me:
In my view the following types of patients could, generally speaking, be considered as potential members of Therapeutic Social Clubs:

(1) People who are abnormally reserved, solitary and shy and who find it difficult to adapt themselves to a normal social life.
(2) People who have had treatment at a Mental Hospital, such as a Leucotomy operation, and who may need about a year's rehabilitation before they are completely fit.
(3) Certain people who are constitutionally unstable and who find it hard to fit into life but can be kept in their jobs with a minimum of psychiatric treatment and help."

Another eminent psychiatrist has also said to me:
The following categories are suitable for consideration as members of clubs outside the precincts of hospitals: psychotics, neurotics, delinquents, and parents as part of child guidance.
I should have liked to elaborate on those four classifications but time does not permit. However, I believe that the correspondence which I have had with the Minister and his Department obviates-the need for me to justify the claims of those clubs at any great length. Yet a layman's description is justifiable even in the short time available, to try to paint for the House a picture of what these clubs do.
First, they reassure the relatives of patients because they know that the patients will be getting regular notice and attention. Then no time is lost if a relapse appears imminent. Again, patients can relax and join in ordinary social activity in the clubs. As many as 80 patients can have attention and receive beneficial treatment despite disparities of age. The two sexes can mingle despite wide disparities of social background. The clubs are under the day to day guidance of social therapists who receive their training in observation and reporting from trained psychiatrists.
I have been to many of these clubs and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and one or two other hon. Members have also visited clubs in their Divisions. I had this impression, that patients who go into these clubs find themselves on terms of equality. They regain the confidence that, for various reasons, they lost in the past. They can amuse each other, they can participate in discussion, dancing, games, and so on. In other words they find themselves on terms of equality with the rest of the world. I shall quote four cases taken from the records of the voluntary society to which I have made reference that illustrate my contention, and I have taken those cases as demonstrating the four groups mentioned just now.
The first is the case of Mr. X, a psychotic patient, who had been for many years in a mental hospital suffering from schizophrenia, a split mind. He improved slowly and his relatives, who were concerned about him, took him out on their own responsibility. However, he became so difficult and troublesome that they felt they had to return him to the mental hospital. Before taking this step they heard of the existence of therapeutic social clubs and, in due course, he was made a member of a club. This man, who had been deluded, difficult and a nuisance to his whole environment, has changed his behaviour considerably. His delusions have disappeared, he has become an easy and a good mixer, he has started work and is teaching others his craft.
This is a typical case of that category of chronic psychotic patient who would have been in a mental hospital as incurable for the rest of his life. Although it has not yet been achieved that he can work in the competitive open market, he has become a useful member of society. He is carrying on his craft during the day and teaching and training other adults and juvenile patients. It has taken only a few months to make this patient lose his symptoms and become a happy and useful member of society. If I read these reports. I think the House will bear with me because I am anxious not to give incorrect medical implications.
Then there is the second case, of Miss A who was a neurotic suffering from headaches, depression, and obsessional symptoms. As her parents lived in the country, her father was advised to send

the patient to London to be treated in a therapeutic social club. He refused and preferred to send her for treatment to a mental hospital. After out-patient treatment had for many months failed to improve her, two years as an in-patient in a modern mental hospital failed to bring about an improvement and she went from bad to worse. Only then did her father agree to her travelling to London so that she could be treated at a therapeutic social club. It took only a few months for her to improve to such a degree that she lost all her symptoms and was able to go back to her former occupation, which is skilled employment not only as an employee but in a managerial capacity.
The third case is of a Mr. Y, a delinquent. Mr. Y had been referred by a prison psychiatrist. He was an intelligent young man who had committed a sexual offence in a moment of apparent mental blackout. He was a person who seemed very matter of fact and logical, but without feelings. While a child his curiosity of sexual matters had been suppressed, and he was never given an opportunity to be a naturally aggressive boy. Therefore all his energy had accumulated in him and sought a way out. He received sexual instruction in prison and admitted he committed the crime out of ignorance and curiosity. When he was discharged from prison he could find no friends and was a social outcast. He lost his courage and could not find work. At the club he was accepted as an equal. When he discovered he was not an outcast he found his courage again. Once he had found that, he went out and found work, which gave him all he wanted.
The last case with which I want to trouble the House comes under the heading I gave of "Parents as part of child guidance." Under this-fourth category experience has shown that in many cases child guidance problems originate from parental inadequacies. Later I shall describe a form of multi-dimensional treatment carried on in the clubs. This case, which is typical, concerns the child of people Whom I will describe as Mr. and Mrs. Z. Their child refused stubbornly to take food. The psychiatrist found that the mother was in a very tense state of mind. The main cause was that she had no social outlets. After both parents had attended the club, the child's behaviour changed completely and the mother said to the psychiatrist at the


club, "What have you done to our child? We cannot stop him eating."
I have no delusions that, in the light of Parliamentary discussion within this last week on Supplementary Estimates, and in particular the Debate on the Health Services, that this is not perhaps a very happy augury for a plea for financial assistance, but, if I can prove to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is an economic advantage to be derived from these clubs, perhaps he and his officials will view the matter very sympathetically. We believe that these clubs save overcrowding in hospitals. Difficulties in connection with new buildings and staffing and the burden on the medical staff may be eased by the provision of further clubs.
I have the most reliable information that the cost of maintenance of a mental in-patient in the metropolitan area works out at £180 per annum. We think that in the case of in-patients, if as we believe in-patient treatment can be expedited to that extent, that the cost to maintain a patient at the rate of £180 per annum may be saved. In the case of out-patients, because the clubs permit the more economical use of psychiatrists, social therapists and the like, these clubs are an economic proposition. The cost of the clubs works out, according to the budgets now in operation, at about £7 per year, for a member in a club where there is a fairly large membership, and about f15 a year in one of the smaller clubs. There is a club, for instance, in the Division of the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Rogers) whom I see in the House. In that club the cost, including psychiatric sessional fees, works out at £7 a member per year. I ask the House to consider that compared with the cost of maintaining an in-patient at £180 per annum.
There is a highly qualified band of psychiatrists available to advise the Minister and his officials, regional boards and local health authorities on this matter. I wish to pay tribute particularly to the North-West Regional Board, which has been very helpful in this connection. There are further developments which derive from these clubs. For instance, there is the problem of maintaining a mental patient where his relatives are themselves wage-earners. We believe that near autonomous hostels are a

possibility and should be considered by the Ministry.
There is the question of the day hospital to which I have made reference. Here the principle is to provide more intensive treatment for nervous and mentally ill patients than is available in the clubs. In view of the prejudice of the public towards the mental hospital in-patient treatment we think the day hospital bridges the gap between the hospital and the out-patient department, which are the two standard treatments of today.
But I do not want to distract attention from the main issue that I raised, the issue of these clubs. If in the course of my remarks I have appeared to offer medical or scientific advice I have done so inadvertently, but I feel, as many other hon. Members feel, that the state of affairs in some of our mental hospitals is causing great distress to patients, relatives, the public at large and to medical practitioners. I wish most strongly to emphasise to the Minister that consideration by his Department to spreading the idea of these clubs up and down the country is most important.
I shall have failed most signally this afternoon if I have somehow implied that these are new and momentous methods of treatment. On the contrary, nothing more is suggested than that a corner of the veil is being lifted. It is a veil which hides a great deal of human unhappiness. Perhaps I should not say this, but I believe it to be true: there are too many people in the world today, there was a time when I was one of them, for whom mental ill health has a horrific connotation. Too many people have preferred not to know what goes on in mental hospitals.
I ask the Minister to consider three points. The first is what steps he can take through ministerial channels to make known the general principles underlying these clubs. The second is whether, in so far as the research work has so far been carried out on a voluntary basis, he can devise ways and means for financial grants for research because the work needs to be scientifically established. That takes money and with the financial stringency that exists in these affairs it is not possible to carry on scientifically this project unless financial aid is given. I mentioned at the beginning of my


speech the Institute of Social Psychiatry of which I am a governor. Because of that I say that any like body or voluntary association which is carrying on comparable work would, I hope, be considered sympathetically.
The third is to make known to authorities in general and to his Department in particular what are the economic applications of this project, the economic argument being that it might and should relieve congestion in our existing mental hospitals. I have the authority of the Chairman of the L.C.C. Health Committee to quote him as saying that if more of these clubs were available the present mental in-patient population could be weeded out to some extent. I believe that it was Anatole France who coined the phrase "A moment in the conscience of man." It is to that same conscience that I make this appeal.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wish to say a few words in support of the eloquent plea which my hon. Friend has made on behalf of these therapeutic social clubs. I do so because there is one of the clubs in Islington. I have visited it on a number of occasions and have been extremely impressed by the very valuable work which is going on there. As my hon. Friend has said, these clubs serve a great human need. There are a great many people who have either been in mental homes or who are potential inmates of mental homes, people who are in need not merely of psychiatric treatment as individuals but are more particularly in need of such treatment as a group. These therapeutic social clubs exist for the purpose of giving these unfortunate people the means of social expression, developing their contacts and friendship with other people and organising social activities. I have been markedly impressed by the way they show dividends. After a short time at these weekly meetings in the not very expensive clubs, abnormal people rapidly develop a greater sense of self-confidence, a sense of responsibility and assurance.
I am sure that very valuable work is being done, but it does not seem right to me that this should be done entirely with the support of voluntary persons. It seems to me essentially something which should have the sympathy and assistance of the State. In London some of these

clubs are assisted very notably by the London County Council. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give sympathetic consideration to what has been urged on him this afternoon and realise that there is a responsibility on the State to take over the support of these clubs; and in particular to encourage and stimulate with financial assistance the very important work of research which is being done, and still has to be done, in this field.

4.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): All hon. Members in the House at this moment are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) for raising this subject, and particularly for the interest we know he has taken in it and the time he has spent upon it. As he said, it is true that the whole problem of the treatment of mental suffering and illness is very serious; all the more serious because of the very great handicaps we are all facing in its treatment today, both with the overcrowded mental hospitals and the shortage of staff. I do not want to over emphasise that, because we should realise that in spite of these difficulties we are encouraged by the fact that now something over 60 per cent. of the admissions to our mental hospitals are voluntary. That indeed is a trend which is greatly encouraging and we are very anxious that it should develop further.
It would be wrong for us to dismiss any suggestion which might seem to help us in our problems. Some of the points my hon. Friend put forward are not new, as he said. For some time it has been the tendency in mental hospitals to develop the work of welfare clubs of one kind or another; both inside the hospital and also, to some much more limited extent, outside the hospital. There are clubs run by local authorities and mental hospitals outside the curtilage of the hospitals altogether. These clubs are doing comparable work too and we appreciate very much indeed the value of it.
It is also true that the old problem of the almost inevitable segregation of the sexes which did, and still does take place to a large extent in our mental hospitals, is being increasingly overcome by the endeavours to associate together or to en-


courage the association of opposite sexes. To a much increased extent the general social activities in mental hospitals are being organised and run by the patients themselves. All this is a good and healthy trend in the direction we have been discussing.
The problem as I find it, after discussing this matter with our medical advisors, is in what field can these clubs best serve? In our view, while there is no doubt at all that the clubs can be of immense value, particularly on the welfare and after-care side—and indeed to some extent on the preventive side—it would be a mistake to over-emphasise their possibilities as an alternative to hospital or out-patient clinics. That is clearly where there is some difference of opinion between those medical experts who take the view expressed by my hon. Friend and those who take the view that the actual treatment side should be concentrated in hospital and out-patient clinics. That does not necessarily in any way detract from the value of the work done by the clubs, but suggests that we are not likely to find any great reduction of pressure upon our hospitals and outpatient clinics by the adoption and development of further clubs of this nature, although unquestionably they have a very valuable part to play.
For that reason, it might be a bit misleading to pay too much attention to the comparison between the cost of the maintenance of patients in mental hospitals and the cost of the social welfare work in one of the clubs mentioned by my hon. Friend. Up to the moment we have comparatively little experience of the working of these clubs outside the hospital perimeter. We need a good deal more experience of their working before we can judge satisfactorily in what way they should best be developed and encouraged. It is, of course, true that both

the regional hospital boards and the local health authorities would be concerned, and I know that they have been studying this problem both in London and elsewhere. At this moment I am afraid it would not be possible for me to commit the Department to any expenditure of funds on these projects, nor would it be possible for me to guarantee that we could exert pressure on the local health authorities or hospitals boards.

Mr. Snow: I was not appealing for funds for the clubs, which would not come directly under my hon. Friend's Department, but for funds for research in establishing scientific work.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is a matter we should leave mainly in the hands of the hospitals boards and the local health authorities, at any rate for the present. We feel that clubs arising naturally from the local health authorities and the regional hospital boards are more likely to be successful than any proposals originating nationally from the Ministry. I am afraid that it is true that, at any rate until we can get further through what I should still call this experimental period in their use, I cannot guarantee or give any assurance about financial or other support which the Ministry of Health could give. I am very much interested in the proposals which have been raised. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall give them most sympathetic consideration and I would say, further, that I hope that this Debate itself will have helped to draw the attention of a wider public to the valuable work that has been done.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes to Five o'Clock.